{
  "id": 5791948,
  "name": "Charles S. MacCarty v. Mary E. Springer",
  "name_abbreviation": "MacCarty v. Springer",
  "decision_date": "1898-05-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "626",
  "last_page": "627",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 Ill. App. 626"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5174471
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/64/0259-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2482,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.61,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17040008896271558
    },
    "sha256": "4c988af1b23670b4836d1796587653748d1d0f9325b597b3e6cb5f99c665f8f7",
    "simhash": "1:f88537101c2cb082",
    "word_count": 422
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:12:45.168189+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles S. MacCarty v. Mary E. Springer."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this case the assignment of errors is as follows:\n\u201c 1. The court erred in confirming the master\u2019s report.\n\u201c 2. The court erred in entering decree against Charles S. MacCarty, in manner and form as provided in said decree, as said decree is contrary to the law and the evidence.\u201d\nThe so-called \u201c abstract of record \u201d filed in this case, does not give the master\u2019s report. The -only statement as to it is this:\n\u201c Report and supplemental report of master filed February 19, A. D. 1896, with exhibits and proofs therein mentioned, finding Charles S. MacCarty personally liable for the payment of the incumbrances in question, and that the complainant is entitled to a decree of foreclosure.\u201d\nNeither is there any abstract of the decree further than this:\n\u201cDecree of foreclosure and sale pursuant to the report of the master, entered upon the same day, for $2,536.02, as due by the return of the notes and trust deed.\u201d\nNeither does said alleged abstract of the record purport to give the substance of the testimony offered on behalf of the appellee, or even refer to the fact that there was any taken. We can not, therefore, determine from the abstract whether the assignment of errors is well founded or not.\nIt is the well settled rule of the Appellate Court of this district, as well as of the Supreme Court of Illinois, that \u201c an abstract must, as against the appellant, be sufficiently full to represent all the errors upon which he relies.\u201d Shields v. Brown, 64 Ill. App. 259, and cases there cited.\nThe brief and argument for appellee purport to quote in numerous instances from the record. As these quotations are not challenged by.appellant, we accept them as reliable. It thus appearing that the decree of the court below is correct, we have no hesitancy in affirming it for want of a sufficient abstract.\nThe decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James T. Maher, attorney for appellant.",
      "M. L. Raftree, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles S. MacCarty v. Mary E. Springer.\n1. Abstract\u2014Must be Sufficiently Full.\u2014An abstract must, as against the appellant, be sufficiently full to present all the errors upon which he relies.\nBill to Foreclose a Trust Deed.\u2014Trial in the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Nathaniel C. Sears, Judge, presiding. Hearing and decree for complainant. Appeal by defendant.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court, First District, at the March term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 31, 1898.\nJames T. Maher, attorney for appellant.\nM. L. Raftree, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0626-01",
  "first_page_order": 624,
  "last_page_order": 625
}