{
  "id": 5273938,
  "name": "C. S. Young v. Wells Glass Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Young v. Wells Glass Co.",
  "decision_date": "1900-02-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "537",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 Ill. App. 537"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "126 Ill. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5404958
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/126/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. App. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4953859
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/27/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ill. 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ill. 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2502,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.578,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.52136881339414
    },
    "sha256": "44fcb7c6c541814be5873183e4215e028662765fa0a6cd709f4be3a81d36abc3",
    "simhash": "1:98f98a7378789ff8",
    "word_count": 462
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:28.737909+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. S. Young v. Wells Glass Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court in this case must be affirmed. Ho points in writing specifying the grounds of any motion for a new trial appear in the transcript of record as provided by Sec. 57 of the practice act; neither does it appear in the bill of exceptions that a motion for a new trial, either oral or in writing, was made or filed, and overruled, and exceptions taken.\nThe bill of exceptions does not mention, and makes no reference to a motion for a new trial; or to points in writing specifying the grounds for any such motion; or to the overruling of such a motion; or to any exceptions relating to the overruling of such a motion.\nThe clerk of the trial court states in the record that \u201c The defendant, Charles S. Young, submits herein his motion for a new trial in said cause.\u201d Also that \u201c This cause coming on to be heard upon the motion of the said defendant, Charles S. Young, heretofore filed herein,\u201d the same is overruled. But that does not make it a part of the record.\n\u201c The law requires the certificate of the judge and not of the clerk, to that fact.\u201d Boyle v. Livings, 28 Ill. 316, cited with approval in O. O. & F. R. V. R. R. Co. v. McMath, 91 Ill. 108; Gould v. Howe, 127 Ill. 252.\n\u201c It must appear from the bill of exceptions that the defendant either excepted to the finding of the court, or made a motion for a new trial.\u201d Fireman\u2019s Ins. Co. v. Peck, 27 Ill. App. 91, affirmed in 126 Ill. 493.\nThis point is definitely presented by counsel for appellee in his brief and argument, long since filed in this cause, and counsel for appellant must have been advised of same, but make no reply.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James H. Teller, attorney for appellant.",
      "Henry W. Wolseley, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. S. Young v. Wells Glass Co.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Bill of Exceptions\u2014What it Must Show.\u2014A bill of exceptions must show that the party either excepted to the finding of the court, or made a motion for a new trial.\n3. Same\u2014Motion for a New Trial\u2014How Made a Part of the Record. \u2014The certificate of the clerk does not make the motion for a new trial a part of the record; the law requires the certificate of the judge and not of the clerk, to that fact.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Common counts. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 13, 1900.\nJames H. Teller, attorney for appellant.\nHenry W. Wolseley, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0537-01",
  "first_page_order": 543,
  "last_page_order": 544
}