{
  "id": 5254817,
  "name": "Union Insurance Co. v. Marjorie H. Crosby, Adm'x. etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Union Insurance v. Crosby",
  "decision_date": "1897-05-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "129",
  "last_page": "130",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 129"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. App. 422",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5778398
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/11/0422-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4762746
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/5/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2662684
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/83/0584-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill. 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2620091
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/65/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ill. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        826258
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/89/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2635852
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/69/0257-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2627934
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/68/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2626713
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/68/0326-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2352,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5522964274278852e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6751372377308484
    },
    "sha256": "33275886b33a1e61185353d765009c32e1d63983089c7cd4f42086369819e343",
    "simhash": "1:dca01cc238f41018",
    "word_count": 417
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Union Insurance Co. v. Marjorie H. Crosby, Adm\u2019x. etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit in which, a jury having been waived, there was a finding and judgment by the court for the defendant.\nThe merits of the case seem to be with appellee.\nThe bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was taken to either the finding of the court, the overruling of the motion for a new trial, or the judgment. The record therefore presents nothing upon which we can act. Kennedy, Adm\u2019r, v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co., First Dist. Ill. App., filed Feb. 9th, 1897; St. L., A. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. Dorsey, 68 Ill. 326: Brown v. Clement, 68 Ill. 192; Seibel v. Vaughan, 69 Ill. 257; Trustee v. Meisenheimer. 89 Ill. 151; Grimes v. Butts, 65 Ill. 347.\nAlthough a cause is tried by the court without a jury, unless an exception is taken to the finding, its correctness can not be questioned by an appellate court. Sherman v. Skinner, 83 Ill. 584; Duncan v. Chandler, 5 Ill. App. 499.\nNor does the making and overruling of a motion for now trial take the place of exceptions unless the overruling of such motion be excepted to. Duncan v. Chandler, supra; Brooks v. The People, 11 Ill. App. 422.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hamilton & Stevenson, attorneys for appellant; Hood Gilpin and Adelbert Hamilton, of counsel.",
      "W. E. Hughes, attorney for appellee; D. J. Schuyler and Thos. L. Humphreville, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Union Insurance Co. v. Marjorie H. Crosby, Adm\u2019x. etc.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Insufficient Bill of Exceptions.\u2014\nWhere the bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was taken'to either the finding of the court, the overruling of the motion for a new trial, or the judgment, there is nothing presented upon which the Appellate Court can act.\n2. Practice\u2014Exceptions Must Be Taken.\u2014Although a cause is tried by the court without a jury, unless an exception is taken to the finding, its correctness can not be questioned by an Appellate Court.\n3. Same\u2014Exceptions tofhe Overruling of a Motion for a New Trial.\u2014\nThe making and overruling a motion for a new trial does not take the place of exceptions unless the overruling of such motion is excepted to.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 6, 1897.\nHamilton & Stevenson, attorneys for appellant; Hood Gilpin and Adelbert Hamilton, of counsel.\nW. E. Hughes, attorney for appellee; D. J. Schuyler and Thos. L. Humphreville, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0129-01",
  "first_page_order": 129,
  "last_page_order": 130
}