{
  "id": 3022014,
  "name": "Benjamin F. Hawes v. Sarah Dora Sternheim, Exrx.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hawes v. Sternheim",
  "decision_date": "1895-05-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "341",
  "last_page": "341",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "156 Ill. 341"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        856667
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/57/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 Ill. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3080942
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "550"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/144/0532-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 130,
    "char_count": 1371,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.593,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6015501289843539
    },
    "sha256": "58549896c6bbc49db4dbb258cb4674ba528102ff18b845b4176d6c0b46ea5a5f",
    "simhash": "1:c94577a302bc8df4",
    "word_count": 237
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:28:09.853933+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Benjamin F. Hawes v. Sarah Dora Sternheim, Exrx."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nIn this case there was a trial before the circuit court by agreement, without a jury. No written propositions to be held as law by the court in the decision of the case were submitted to the court, as required by section 42 of the Practice act. Hence, no question of law is presented by the record for our determination. (Hall v. Cox, 144 Ill. 532; Waldron v. Alexander, 136 id. 550; Belleville Savings Bank v. Bornman, 124 id. 200; Hobbs v. Ferguson, 100 id. 232.) No error is complained of as having been committed by the trial court in the admission or exclusion of evidence. It follows that the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed. It is accordingly so ordered.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert H. Meads, for appellant.",
      "Moses, Pam & Kennedy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Benjamin F. Hawes v. Sarah Dora Sternheim, Exrx.\nFiled at Ottawa May 15, 1895.\nAppeals and errors\u2014when no question is presented, judgment will he affirmed. No question of law is presented for determination on appeal from a judgment rendered by the court upon a trial, by agreement, without a jury, where no written propositions are submitted, as required by the Practice act.\nHawes v. Sternheim, 57 Ill. App. 126, affirmed.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Edmund W. Burke, Judge, presiding.\nAlbert H. Meads, for appellant.\nMoses, Pam & Kennedy, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0341-01",
  "first_page_order": 341,
  "last_page_order": 341
}