{
  "id": 5255339,
  "name": "James B. Swing, Trustee, v. The Blakely Printing Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Swing v. Blakely Printing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1899-05-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "321",
  "last_page": "323",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "82 Ill. App. 321"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "110 Ill. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5373263
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/110/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3007148
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/139/0424-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 313,
    "char_count": 5046,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15696976927998504
    },
    "sha256": "03c442f8f3e9d658df1290705f2145121c3456afba393b673cf7e57fee49433c",
    "simhash": "1:2781025063df8f63",
    "word_count": 864
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:39:38.340689+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James B. Swing, Trustee, v. The Blakely Printing Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nA judgment of ouster against the Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company, an Ohio corporation, was entered by the Supreme Court of Ohio, in 1890, and appellant was appointed trustee of the creditors and stockholders of said company, under the provisions of the revised statutes of Ohio.\nIn his capacity as such trustee, the appellant brought this suit, in 1896, to recover from appellee, as a member of said insurance company, the amount of an assessment alleged to have been made by said trustee against appellee, of $687.50. A trial was had and a verdict finding the issues for the defendant (appellee) was returned by direction of the trial judge, and a judgment for costs of suit was entered against appellant.\nFor present purposes, it may be assumed that, as appellant argues, appellant made proof of everything he was required to establish preliminarily to proving the assessment that was made by him, and that it only remained for him in order to make at least a prima facie case, to further show the assessment that was actually made by him. He then offered in evidence that assessment as contained in a book produced to and identified by a witness, the witness testifying that the book produced and exhibited by him, \u201c was a record of the assessment made by the plaintiff, pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court (of Ohio); that the book contained the record of that whole assessment as made by the plaintiff; that it is the assessment made by the trustee.\u201d (We quote from appellant\u2019s brief.) Appellant\u2019s brief adds: \u201c This record of the assessment was in fact the very instrument sued on. If it showed a valid assessment, plaintiff would be entitled to recover, and if it did not show a valid assessment, or was in itself incomplete, and insufficient to show a proper assessment, then plaintiff\u2019s case must fail, unless plaintiff cured the defect by other evidence.\u201d\nBut the trial judge excluded the offered book, presumably because, as we are bound to conclude, the book, or record it contained, did not, for some reason, show \u201ca valid assessment, or was in itself incomplete, and insufficient to show a proper assessment.\u201d\nAlthough this book was offered in evidence by appellant, and, presumably, was and is in his possession and control, he has not incorporated it, or a copy of it, into the record, nor has he attached it to the bill of exceptions as an exhibit, and we have no means of seeing it and judging for ourselves, as our duty requires, whether it shows a valid assessment or not. Neither is .there anywhere in the record, abstracts or briefs, any statement of what the book contains. It is variously spoken of, by witnesses and counsel, by name, but calling a document by a particular name proves nothing.\nThe bill of exceptions shows, affirmatively, what, in some respects, the book does not contain. Bor example, it is recited in connection with the refusal of the court to admit the book in evidence, that \u201c there was nothing to show that the book offered in evidence contained the assessment made by the trustee, except the testimony of the witness Williams, (the witness in connection with whose testimony the book was offered). The book had never been filed in the Ohio court, and it bore no evidence that it contained the assessment which the court ordered approved.\u201d\nIt also appears, elsewhere in the bill of exceptions, that the book contained original entries of claims allowed by the trustee to the extent of four only, in number, and contained only a copy, transcribed from an original book of losses kept by the directors of the company, of the entries of claims or losses allowed by the directors prior to the appointment of the trustee. As said in Bromwell v. Estate of Bromwell, 139 Ill. 424, \u201c As the bill of exceptions contains no evidence as to what those entries were, we can not say that they had any bearing upon the questions at issue, and they must accordingly be disregarded.\u201d See, also, Clifford v. Drake, 110 Ill. 135.\nIt is most manifest that we can not reverse a judgment rendered because of the insufficiency or invalidity of a document of such vital importance which is kept from us.\nFor aught that appears, the judgment of the Superior Court was right, and it will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harvey Strickler, attorney for appellant.",
      "A. L. Flaningham and L. B. Hilles, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James B. Swing, Trustee, v. The Blakely Printing Co.\n1. Bill of Exceptions\u2014Must Show Evidence Offered, and Rejected. \u2014Where evidence is offered by a party litigant and excluded upon objection, the nature and character of such evidence should be shown in some proper way by the bill of exceptions so that the Appellate Court can determine the errors assigned upon its exclusion.\nAssumpsit, on an assessment, etc. Trial in the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for defendant; appeal by plaintiff. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 2, 1899.\nHarvey Strickler, attorney for appellant.\nA. L. Flaningham and L. B. Hilles, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0321-01",
  "first_page_order": 319,
  "last_page_order": 321
}