{
  "id": 5471863,
  "name": "The East St. Louis Electric Railway Company v. Jennie Stout",
  "name_abbreviation": "East St. Louis Electric Railway Co. v. Stout",
  "decision_date": "1894-04-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "9",
  "last_page": "11",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 Ill. 9"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5273603
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/55/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Scam. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Gilm. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Wall. 599",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 Ill. 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2869489
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/114/0206-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3060831
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/148/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 Ill. 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2869489
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/114/0206-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 300,
    "char_count": 4924,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.474679322422714e-07,
      "percentile": 0.881420499805201
    },
    "sha256": "16ec4ec62f3e4c233ea7dfc0561fd1cd297d37ce4bd0ea2578064c4d7f8e07d1",
    "simhash": "1:adaab67f76ec1d69",
    "word_count": 877
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:58.815032+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The East St. Louis Electric Railway Company v. Jennie Stout."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThis was an action for personal injury of defendant in error, resulting, upon trial by jury, in a verdict for defendant in error of $1000, and judgment accordingly. On appeal to the Appellate Court this judgment was affirmed,' and the railway company prosecutes this writ of error.\nThe assignment of error questioning the rulings of the court on the admission of evidence has been abandoned in argument, and need not be considered.\nNo exception was preserved to the ruling of the court in the giving, refusing or modifying of instructions, or in overruling the motion for a new trial, and the assignments of error questioning such rulings are not, therefore, before us for consideration. Martin et al. v. Foulke et al. 114 Ill. 206; Graham v. People, 115 id. 566; Fireman\u2019s Ins. Co. v. Peck, 126 id. 494; Gould v. Howe, 127 id. 251; Steffy v. People, 130 id. 98.\nA motion for new trial was made and overruled, and it is insisted, with earnestness, that the subsequent exception to the rendition of the judgment should be held to apply. We are unable to agree with counsel that the order overruling a motion for new trial and the subsequent entry of judgment are'so intimately connected that an exception to the entry of the latter should be held to apply to the former. Indeed, the bill of exceptions expressly limits the exception to the entry of the judgment. The language is: \u201cBut the court overruled the motion\u201d (for new trial) \u201cand rendered judgment in accordance with the finding of the jury, to the rendition of which judgment the defendant then and there excepted.\u201d The statute (sec. 61, chap. 110,) gives the right to assign error upon the decision of the court overruling motions for new trial, only in case the party has- excepted to such decision.' East St. Louis Electric Railway Co. v. Cauley, 148 Ill. 490.\nNo error is pointed out in the rendition of the judgment, and none is apparent, and nothing else having been excepted to at the trial, it follows that the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Cockrell & Moyers, for the plaintiff in error:",
      "Mr. Jesse M. Freels, and Mr. A. Flanigan, for the defendant in error:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The East St. Louis Electric Railway Company v. Jennie Stout.\nFiled at Mt. Vernon April 2, 1894.\n1. Exceptions \u2014 preserving in the record. Where no exception is preserved to the ruling of the court in the giving, refusing or modifying of instructions, or in overruling the motion for a new trial, the assignments of error questioning such rulings will not be before this court for consideration.\n2. Same \u2014 whether limited, to the judgment, or extended to embrace motion for a new trial. The language of a bill of exceptions was as follows: \u201cBut the court overruled the motion\u201d (for new trial) \u201cand rendered judgment in accordance with the finding of the jury, to the rendition of which judgment the defendant then and there excepted Held, that the exception did not embrace the ruling on the motion for a new trial, but expressly limited the exception to the entry of the final judgment.\n3. New tbiaii \u2014 overruling motion \u2014 exceptions. The statute (sec. 61, chap. 110,) gives the right to assign error upon the decision of the court overruling motion for new trial, only in case the party has excepted to such decision.\nWrit op Error to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District ; \u2014 heard in that court on appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. B. H. Canby, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Cockrell & Moyers, for the plaintiff in error:\nThere is no doubt but that the exception was intended to apply to the ruling of the court on the motion for a new trial. Martin v. Foulke, 114 Ill. 206 ; Graham v. People, 115 id. 566 ; Insurance Co. v. Peck, 126 id. 494; Gould v. Howe, 127 id. 251; Steffy v. People, 130 id. 98.\nMr. Jesse M. Freels, and Mr. A. Flanigan, for the defendant in error:\nOur Supreme Court has repeatedly held that \u201ca party, to avail himself of an exception to a decision of the circuit court, must take the exception at the time the decision is made, and that the bill of exceptions must affirmatively show that it was taken at that time.\u201d Dickhut v. Durrell, 11 Ill. 84; Allen v. Payne, 45 id. 340; Winslow v. Newlan, id. 147; Deitrich v. Waldron, 90 id. 115 ; Nathan v. Bloomington, 46 id. 347; Railroad Co. v. Miller, 55 id. 448; Ritchey v. West, 23 id. 385 ; Hake v. Strubel, 121 id. 326; Parsons v. Evans, 17 id. 238; Swafford v. Dovenor, 1 Seam. 167; Pomeroy v. Bank, 1 Wall. 599; Railway Co. v. Wolf, 137 Ill. 361.\nSaid third and fourth alleged errors are, therefore, no errors under the law in this case, and can not be considered by this court. Hill v. Ward, 2 Gilm. 292; Dickhut y. Durrell, 11 Ill. 84; Railroad Co. v. Modglin, 85 id. 482; Steffy v. People, 130 id. 101; Railroad Co. v. Garish, 39 id. 371; Hake v. Strubel, 121 id. 326; Parsons v. Evans, 17 id. 238; Swafford v. Dovenor, 1 Scam. 167; Wright v. Wheeler, 55 Ill. 528; Grimes v. Butt, 65 id. 350; Trustees v. Misenheimer, 89 id. 151; Buckmaster v. Cool, 12 id. 76."
  },
  "file_name": "0009-01",
  "first_page_order": 9,
  "last_page_order": 11
}