{ "id": 5255326, "name": "Peshtigo Company v. Merchants & Shippers' Agency", "name_abbreviation": "Peshtigo Co. v. Merchants & Shippers' Agency", "decision_date": "1899-04-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "149", "last_page": "151", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 Ill. App. 149" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "167 Ill. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3090725 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/167/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Ill. 654", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2865088 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/113/0654-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 Ill. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3139774 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/157/0655-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 278, "char_count": 4760, "ocr_confidence": 0.432, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15696938315708753 }, "sha256": "90ab19f54d78b6c52f577d1029eb5801a63927ebae2eb562f99803d73dc88638", "simhash": "1:9ba3592573ab53c4", "word_count": 811 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:39:38.340689+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Peshtigo Company v. Merchants & Shippers' Agency." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellee sued in assumpsit to recover compensation to which it claims to be entitled under a verbal agreement, by which it was to receive forty per cent of the amount which should be collected from the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company upon a claim in favor of appellant. After the arrangement was made, and after, as it is claimed, appellee had done some work in preparing the case for presentation, appellant took the matter out of appellee\u2019s hands, and employed counsel for itself, by whom the claim was settled or collected.\nIt is claimed by appellant that the original agreement with appellee was based upon an understanding that the latter should employ certain attorneys, who were not employed.\nThe testimony is conflicting, and was submitted to a jury, who found a verdict in favor of appellee. It is urged that this verdict is not supported by the evidence, and that therefore the judgment should be set aside.\nThe bill of exceptions concludes its statement of the evidence as follows: \u201c Which, with documentary proof referred to and to be inserted, was all the testimony offered on the trial in said cause by either of said parties.\u201d\nAfterward two exhibits were supplied by the court and made part of the bill of exceptions by a subsequent certificate. But it is stated by counsel for appellant that \u201c counsel for appellee declined to furnish or permit copies of these exhibits to be made for the purpose of incorporating them in the bill of exceptions,\u201d and it appears that but .two out of eight exhibits offered in evidence and read to the jury are now found therein.\nIt is urged upon our attention that these missing exhibits are in the control of appellee\u2019s counsel, and that \u201cat the time the bill of exceptions was signed by the trial court it was agreed and so ordered by the trial court that these exhibits should be subsequently inserted,\u201d and that appellee\u2019s counsel \u201c refused to furnish copies or to permit us to take copies of them.\u201d Nothing, however, appears in the record with reference to any such agreement or refusal. If appellant\u2019s counsel disobeyed an order of the trial court, that court had ways and means at its disposal to enforce compliance with its order. No effort seems to have been made by appellant\u2019s counsel to secure the aid of the court in procuring the missing exhibits.\nIf exhibits are so identified by the bill of exceptions as to show conclusively that they are the ones submitted to .the trial court, they become properly a part of such bill. Hughes v. Bell, 157 Ill. 655.\nIn this case they are not even identified by the bill of exceptions. They are apparently \u201c referred to \u201d as \u201c documentary proof,\u201d and are \u201cto be inserted.\u201d But there is nothing which would identify such documentary proof, even if subsequently supplied. That a bill of exceptions must purport to contain all the evidence to enable the merits of the case to be considered in this court, is too well known to require citation of authorities; but among cases so holding are James v. Dexter, 113 Ill. 654, and Lagow v. Robeson, 167 Ill. 615.\nIf there was any evidence in the record showing an effort to prevent the consideration of the case on its merits by counsel, it would be our duty to give it careful consideration, and to prevent, if we could, any advantage obtained by dishonorable means. But there is no such evidence before us.\nAs all the evidence produced at the trial is not before us, we must presume that the judgment was justified by such evidence, even if we felt at liberty to interfere with the verdict of the jury, upon evidence which the incomplete record before us shows was conflicting.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman" } ], "attorneys": [ "William M. Jones and W. Morris Jones, attorneys for appellant.", "Buleley, Gray & More, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Peshtigo Company v. Merchants & Shippers' Agency.\n1. Bill of Exceptions\u2014Insufficient Certificate.\u2014A bill of exceptions which concludes its statement of the evidence as follows: \u201c Which, with documentary proof referred to and' to be inserted, was all the testimony offered on the trial in said cause by either of said parities,\u201d is not sufficient to show that it contains all the evidence.\n2. Same\u2014Identification of Exhibits.\u2014If exhibits are so identified by the bill of exceptions as to show conclusively that they are the ones submitted to the trial court, they become properly a part of such bill\nAssumpsit, io \u00a1recover compensation, under a verbal agreement. Trial in the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Abner Smith, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 11, 1899.\nWilliam M. Jones and W. Morris Jones, attorneys for appellant.\nBuleley, Gray & More, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0149-01", "first_page_order": 147, "last_page_order": 149 }