{
  "id": 5785256,
  "name": "Max Stern v. Morris Glattstein",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stern v. Glattstein",
  "decision_date": "1898-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "367",
  "last_page": "368",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 Ill. App. 367"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "149 Ill. 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5472171
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/149/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5242985
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/72/0055-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 Ill. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5470196
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/150/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 625",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2421682
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "637"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/30/0625-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 Ill. 508",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        837642
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/154/0508-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2721,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.628,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.343491648654732e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48098170974446774
    },
    "sha256": "8917c72c895b05b8e7c38c5e090b1c3d087e78c743122d3276962ebd30bd9ac9",
    "simhash": "1:d06e0d667ccc240a",
    "word_count": 469
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:11.973736+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Max Stern v. Morris Glattstein."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Adams\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis case was tried, by agreement, by the court, without a jury. Appellant contends that the finding is contrary to the evidence. The abstract filed by appellant states that the defendant (appellant here) excepted to the judgment. The bill of exceptions shows no such exception. In such case we are precluded from inquiring whether the finding of the court is sustained by the evidence. Ill. Cen. R. R. Co. v. O\u2019Keefe, 154 Ill. 508; Seavey v. Seavey, 30 Ill. App. 625, 637.\nA motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and appellant excepted, but such motion, when a case is tried by the court, is unnecessary, and the exception to the overruling can not avail appellant. Sands v. Kagey, 150 Ill. 109; Dickinson v. Gray, 72 Ill. App. 55.\nAppellant\u2019s counsel object to the form of the court\u2019s finding, which is: \u201c The court finds the issues for the plaintiff, and assesses the plaintiff\u2019s damages at the sum of $340.\u201d An informal verdict does not vitiate. The finding is good in substance, and is sufficient under the statute of jeofails, and may be regarded as reduced to form. I. C. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 149 Ill. 525; Wiggins v. Chicago, 68 Ib. 372; Bates et al. v. Williams, 43 Ib. 494.\nThe proposition, the refusal' of which appellant\u2019s counsel complain of in their argument, relates merely to the sufficiency of the evidence, which,, as before stated, we can not consider on the record before us. There is no other question of law presented.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Adams"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Loms Henry and Max Kobinson, attorneys for appellant.",
      "John J. Coburn and George A. Meech, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Max Stern v. Morris Glattstein.\n1. New Trials\u2014When Motion for, is Unnecessary.\u2014A motion for a new trial when a case is tried without a jury is unnecessary, and so is an exception to the overruling of such a motion.\n2. Finding\u2014Sufficient Under the Statute of Jeofails.\u2014A verdict that states \u201c The court finds the issues for the plaintiff and assesses the plaintiff\u2019s damages at the sum of $340,\u201d is good in substance, and sufficient under the statute of jeofails.\n3. Bill op Exceptions\u2014Where it Shows no Exceptions\u2014Practice.\u2014 Where an abstract states that the defendant excepted to the judgment, but the bill of exceptions shows no such exception, this court is precluded from inquiring whether the finding of the court is sustained by the evidence.\nTrespass on the Case, for seizure of personal property. Trial in the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. R. O. Marshall, Judge, pre-\nsiding; finding and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 12, 1898.\nRehearing denied, March 16, 1899.\nLoms Henry and Max Kobinson, attorneys for appellant.\nJohn J. Coburn and George A. Meech, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0367-01",
  "first_page_order": 373,
  "last_page_order": 374
}
