{
  "id": 5256464,
  "name": "Amundson Printing Co. v. Empire Paper Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Amundson Printing Co. v. Empire Paper Co.",
  "decision_date": "1899-05-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "440",
  "last_page": "442",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 Ill. App. 440"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "74 Ill. App. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5236188
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/74/0044-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 Ill. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3123609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/161/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. App. 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5791306
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/76/0628-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 Ill. App. 223",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5221903
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/77/0223-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5788414
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/78/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 Ill. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3090770
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/167/0018-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 3837,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.568,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.430247644200786e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9449083711058058
    },
    "sha256": "7cba36993adb1a51867dfb54b7feef336268ab9e3b88718ce1858699d7979f60",
    "simhash": "1:95b20b5452802ac0",
    "word_count": 667
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:35.373210+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Amundson Printing Co. v. Empire Paper Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe, printed abstract of record, filed in this court, is a mere index as to everything except the bill of exceptions. \u201c Harr, and affidavit of claim \u201d is all that is any where shown of the declaration.\nComing to the bill of exceptions, it appears in the testimony of one of the witnesses that he received four orders, stated to be marked, respective^, as exhibits, and also that he made deliveries of paper and obtained receipts therefor, four in number, likewise stated to be marked as exhibits. It would seem that such evidences, susceptible of being marked as exhibits, were probably in writing, but neither they, or either of them, nor any abstract or synopsis of them, appear anywhere in the abstract. Without them before us we can not say they do not embody a complete contract that afforded ample justification for the exclusion by the trial court of the offered evidence concerning the time when payment was to be made, and of the claimed damages because of claimed delays in the delivery of the goods, under the contract as expressed in the orders.\nIt is said by the same witness that \u201c the total amount of these orders and invoices which have been produced, is, excluding the note, $605.68.\u201d\nFrom this last statement we may infer that a promissory note for some amount was involved in the suit, but if so, the abstract, including the bill of exceptions as\u201ethere shown, makes no mention of it.\nNon constat, the note was that of the appellant, and for a sufficient amount to cure every error the appellant relies upon.\nNo judgment is shown by the abstract. The single word \u201c Judgment,\u201d appearing in the index we have referred to, is all there is in the abstract to indicate there was ever a judgment rendered in the cause.\nIt is not a satisfactory way of disposing of a case where an appellant has come here in a sincere effort to have alleged errors reviewed, but if we respect our rules and the many decisions of the Supreme and Appellate Courts of this State (and if we do not, who shall 1), we may not reverse a judgment upon an abstract which so inadequately complies with the rule that requires the party bringing his case here to \u201c furnish a complete abstract or abridgment of the record.\u201d\nThe practice has long been thoroughly settled in this State that no judgment will be reversed for errors which are not made to appear by the abstract. Among the latest decisions are: Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 18; Guerin v. Corigan, 78 Ill. App. 554; Dorn v. Ross, 77 Ill. App. 223; Casey v. Vandeventer, 76 Ill. App. 628.\nSometimes the courts have turned to the records where the abstract has been deficient, but, we believe, never to reverse a judgment, only where it has been thought advisable to give other reasons for affirming.\nThe cases of City Electric Railway Company v. Jones, 161 Ill. 47, and Martin v. McMurray, 74 Ill. App. 44, are late instances of so doing. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Knox Haynes, attorney for plaintiff in error.",
      "Tenney, McConnell, Coffeen & Harding, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Amundson Printing Co. v. Empire Paper Co.\n!\u2022 Appellate Court Practice\u2014Insufficient Abstract.\u2014An abstract of the record which is a mere index is insufficient.\n2. Same\u2014Where a Judgment Will Not be Reversed.\u2014No judgment wjp be reversed for errors which are not made to appear by the abstract.\n3. Abstracts\u2014 The Word \u201c Judgment\u201d Shows no Judgment.\u2014The sinok word \u201c Judgment \u201d appearing in the index filed as an abstract of the record is not sufficient to indicate that there was a judgment rendered in the cause. -\nAssumpsit.\u2014Trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding; verdict and judgment for plaintiff; error by defendant.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 26, 1899.\nW. Knox Haynes, attorney for plaintiff in error.\nTenney, McConnell, Coffeen & Harding, attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0440-01",
  "first_page_order": 444,
  "last_page_order": 446
}