{
  "id": 5252031,
  "name": "C. Henning & Sons v. Ella Williams",
  "name_abbreviation": "C. Henning & Sons v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1897-05-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "199",
  "last_page": "200",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 199"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 131,
    "char_count": 1648,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5211892662467966
    },
    "sha256": "c0ed54b740718183b9624ccd06c1c1bf612142cec370aa1f791a27dda44e2071",
    "simhash": "1:9bf5b3a2547736dc",
    "word_count": 279
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. Henning & Sons v. Ella Williams."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, the propriety of the judgment obtained in which depends almost entirely upon disputed questions of fact, concerning which the evidence was conflicting.\nAn examination of the record reveals that an account book introduced in evidence is not incorporated in the bill of exceptions.\nWe are not able, from an examination of the testimony, to say that the contents of this book were not so important as to materially affect the result, and consequently can not know that, upon the evidence presented to the court below, the conclusion there reached was incorrect.\nThe omission of the contents of this book from the record is urged by appellee as a reason why the judgment should be affirmed.\nTo this no satisfactory reply has been made.\nPerceiving in the record no error warranting a reversal of the judgment, it is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Meek, Meek & Cochrane, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Edward J. Walsh, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. Henning & Sons v. Ella Williams.\n1. Bill of Exceptions\u2014Should not Omit Matters that May Have Affected the Result.\u2014Where an examination of the record reveals that an account book introduced in evidence is not incorporated in the bill of exceptions and the court is not able to say that the contents of the book were not important enough to materially affect the result, the judgment can not beheld to be against the weight of the evidence.\nAssumpsit, on a contract of sale. Appeal 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 24, 1897.\nMeek, Meek & Cochrane, attorneys for appellant.\nEdward J. Walsh, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0199-01",
  "first_page_order": 199,
  "last_page_order": 200
}