{
  "id": 5252227,
  "name": "Paul Knefel v. David G. Swartz",
  "name_abbreviation": "Knefel v. Swartz",
  "decision_date": "1897-06-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "371",
  "last_page": "371",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 371"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 639",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5190815
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/67/0639-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5081233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/58/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 Ill. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3123609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/161/0047-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1198,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1569338598505164
    },
    "sha256": "f3292e0a35a7e3f7efac97ca2875eac3e6ec6b3ec502ba4ee2c30a24d5476f7f",
    "simhash": "1:1ac854705c8c9138",
    "word_count": 211
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Paul Knefel v. David G. Swartz."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe abstract does not show what was the declaration upon which the appellee recovered, nor upon what evidence, on an ex parte trial.\nIt is impossible to tell from the abstract whether the affidavits presented on a motion for a new trial, have any relation to the cause of action upon which the recovery was had.\nIn such a case we can not say that the court erred in not granting a new trial.\nWhatever the appellant relies upon for reversal of the judgment he must show by his abstract. City Electric Ry. v. Jones, 161 Ill. 47; Wabash R. R. v. Smith, 58 Ill. App. 419; Newman v. Jacobson, 67 Ill. App. 639.\nThe judgment' is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Knefel, attorney for appellant.",
      "Oliver & Meoartney, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Paul Knefel v. David G. Swartz.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Grounds for Reversal Must be Shown by the Abstract.\u2014Whatever the appellant relies upon for a reversal of the judgment must be shown by the abstract.\nAssumpsit, on a guaranty of a promissory note. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Thomas Gr. Windes, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 14, 1897\nJohn Knefel, attorney for appellant.\nOliver & Meoartney, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0371-01",
  "first_page_order": 371,
  "last_page_order": 371
}