{
  "id": 5253957,
  "name": "Henry C. Bartling v. Christian Thielman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bartling v. Thielman",
  "decision_date": "1899-05-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "297",
  "last_page": "298",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "82 Ill. App. 297"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1970,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6024965162061572
    },
    "sha256": "5c66ef05aa95f4ccff18e20c83ad86ba7853bf4ccb7e406f0c44324642501979",
    "simhash": "1:8d481f433759b6f9",
    "word_count": 332
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:39:38.340689+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry C. Bartling v. Christian Thielman."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this case a rehearing was allowed upon the petition of appellant. Upon a re-examination of the case, and after full consideration of the petition for a rehearing and the answer thereto, we adhere to our former opinion, including the directions therein contained to the trial court.\nIn the answer to the petition for a rehearing, our attention is called to the fact that the assignment of errors, as contained in the abstract of the record, differs materially from the assignment of errors upon the record itself. In the abstract of the record filed by the attorneys for appellant, it appears that there were eleven errors assigned upon the record. Turning to the record, we find there were but five. In other words, in the abstract of record, six alleged errors appear in the \u201c assignment of errors \u201d which do not appear upon the record. What we might have said or done had our attention been called to this upon the original hearing, is now immaterial. But if there were no other reason for declining to change our former opinion, this practical interpolation of additional errors is sufficient, especially as the principal grounds urged in support of the petition are those contained in such additions to the record.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph R. Crocker and Richard H. Towns, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Masterson & Haft, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry C. Bartling v. Christian Thielman.\n1. Rehearing\u2014Sufficient Cause for.\u2014The fact that the assignment of errors as contained in the abstract of the record, differs materially from the assignment of errors upon the record is a sufficient cause for a rehearing where the attention of the court is not called to it upon the original hearing of the case.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Abner Smith, Judge, presiding. Heard on a motion for a rehearing in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1898.\nOriginal opinion adhered to.\nOpinion filed May 2, 1899.\nRalph R. Crocker and Richard H. Towns, attorneys for appellant.\nMasterson & Haft, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0297-01",
  "first_page_order": 295,
  "last_page_order": 296
}
