{
  "id": 2450542,
  "name": "John A. Sterling v. M. M. Fox and Mary Fox",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sterling v. Fox",
  "decision_date": "1897-09-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "70",
  "last_page": "71",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 70"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1940,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "0d136432451c75e35776a07d3104ef2b748efa56bb6dd8179827fa1fed17be5e",
    "simhash": "1:f3237e8ffb5645c1",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:26.715064+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John A. Sterling v. M. M. Fox and Mary Fox."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justioe Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis appears to have been an action of replevin brought in the County Court of Madison County by appellant against appellees, to recover possession of certain personal property. A trial was had by jury, resulting in a verdict finding the title to the property in question to be in the defendants. Motion by appellant for new trial overruled. Judgment on the verdict. Cause appealed to this court.\nOf the numerous errors assigned only three are urged: The giving by the trial court of appellee\u2019s first instruction, refusing of appellant\u2019s fifth instruction, and the refusal by the court to admit certain testimony offered on the trial by appellant.\nWe find no declaration or pleas in the record, nor any mention of such in the abstract, and therefore have no means of knowing what issues were tried. Whether the action of the court complained of was material error or not depends much upon the state of the pleadings.\nWe have, however, examined the evidence with care, and are of opinion that substantial justice has been done, and that upon the merits of the case the judgment of the County Court should be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justioe Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Travous & Warnock and J. W. Bartholomew, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Er\u00f3me & Terry and W. P. Bradshaw, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John A. Sterling v. M. M. Fox and Mary Fox.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Where the Record is Imperfect.\u2014 In this case the court finds no declaration or pleas in the record, nor any mention of them in the abstract, and hence has no means of knowing what issues were tried. Whether the action of the trial court complained of was material error or not, is held to depend largely upon the state of the pleadings, and the judgment is affirmed.\nReplevin.\u2014Appeal from the County Court of Madison County; the Hon. Wm. P. Early, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the February term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 10, 1897.\nTravous & Warnock and J. W. Bartholomew, attorneys for appellant.\nEr\u00f3me & Terry and W. P. Bradshaw, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0070-01",
  "first_page_order": 68,
  "last_page_order": 69
}