{
  "id": 5792787,
  "name": "John Hintz v. Mary Graupner et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hintz v. Graupner",
  "decision_date": "1898-10-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "514",
  "last_page": "515",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 514"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 4060,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33941071467873224
    },
    "sha256": "0ced5a27a254e132743b8c7df8c0528a95357f87bfeccbaebfd76045307e18e3",
    "simhash": "1:de11461450d832ac",
    "word_count": 706
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:24:05.225079+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Hintz v. Mary Graupner et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn January, 1892, the original bill in this case was filed. As appears by what purports to be a \u201c restored original bill,\u201d the purpose of the original was to restrain further proceedings upon a judgment for $2,000 theretofore recovered by defendant in error, Mary Graupner, against plaintiff in error, and to have said judgment set aside and a new trial granted. It also thus appears that the relief sought was based upon the allegations that said judgment was recovered by reason of perjury, and that plaintiff in error could establish that by newly discovered evidence. Replications were filed and the cause was at issue upon the original bill February 13, 1892.\nApril 17, 1893, more than a year after the case was at issue upon the original bill, an amendment to the bill was filed, setting up conspiracy in presentingperjnred testimony upon which said judgment was procured, together with other important allegations. The record does not show any leave of court to file an amendment or any notice to defendants, or either of them, that said amendment had been filed, or any process issued thereon, or rule on defendant to answer same, or any answer thereto.\nApril 6, 1898, nearly five years after final decree was entered in the court below, and after this cause was pending in this court, an order was entered in the court below giving plaintiff in error leave to file what is called a \u201c restored original bill.\u201d This order purports to be upon a petition filed by plaintiff in error, stating that the original bill has been lost and that a certified copy thereof can not be obtained. Mo such petition appears in the record, nor does it appear that the defendants ever filed any answer thereto or that they were ever ordered so to do, or that any process was ever issued upon such a petition. The order recites that \u201c the court, having heard the evidence finds that the allegations of said petitioner are true,\u201d but the evidence is not preserved.\nIt is urged by plaintiff in error that the bill states a case for equitable jurisdiction and relief, and that as the testimony is not preserved, the decree dismissing the bill for want of equity is erroneous. Counsel for plaintiff in error state their position as follows, viz.: \u201c To support a decree either the evidence must be preserved, or the decree must find as proven, facts sufficient to support the decree. * * * A decree which is not supported either by evidence preserved, which is regarded as a part of the decree, or by finding of facts sufficient to support the decree, will be reversed.\u201d\nApply this rule to said order of April 6, 1898, and that order must be disregarded, and there is then no bill of complaint in the case. The evidence upon which that order purports to be entered is not preserved in any way in thb record.\nBut it does not appear from the record in this case that the evidence supporting the decree in question is not preserved. The record as filed in this court does not purport to be a complete record. We can not, therefore, say that there is not a finding of facts which must be regarded as - a part of the decree and which fully supports the decree. By direction of solicitors for plaintiff in error the record contains only .the process, pleadings and orders of court. The substance of these has been sufficiently stated. We can not interfere with the decree.\n. The decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Luther Laflin Mills and Frederick A. Willoughby, attorneys for plaintiff in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Hintz v. Mary Graupner et al.\n1. Presumptions\u2014In the Absence of a Complete Record.\u2014When the record does not purport to be complete, this court can not say that there was not a finding of facts which fully supports the decree.\nBill to Restrain Proceedings at Law.\u2014Trial in the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Decree dismissing the bill for want of equity. Error by complainant.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 21, 1898.\nLuther Laflin Mills and Frederick A. Willoughby, attorneys for plaintiff in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0514-01",
  "first_page_order": 524,
  "last_page_order": 525
}