{
  "id": 3184033,
  "name": "George M. Chamberlin v. Eugene Cary",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chamberlin v. Cary",
  "decision_date": "1897-11-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "34",
  "last_page": "35",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 Ill. 34"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5190518
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/67/0542-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 3622,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.592,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0899469428526528
    },
    "sha256": "565b6e92b5d3975c9d4a5af2b72d420e1e5bb410ae88b7c1608e50760f3e7e0b",
    "simhash": "1:a6cf9966d7f04cd6",
    "word_count": 631
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:45:12.160979+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George M. Chamberlin v. Eugene Cary."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Wilkin\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis was an action of assumpsit in the circuit court of Cook county by appellee, against appellant, on two promissory notes, and judgment was rendered by default for the amount due on the notes and costs of suit. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed.\nThe principal error assigned in the Appellate Court was, \u201cthe court erred in ordering defendant\u2019s plea to be stricken from the files,\u201d and that alleged error is relied upon here to reverse the judgment of affirmance by the Appellate Court.\nAppellant insists that the Appellate Court refused to consider the case upon its merits for want of a proper abstract of the record. There is nothing in the record proper from which we can determine upon what ground the judgment of affirmance was there rendered, but it is clear that the abstract filed in this court in no way presents the question as to whether the circuit court properly struck defendant\u2019s plea from the files. All that is shown by the so-called abstract in that regard is the following:\n\u201cPlea and affidavit filed February 17, 1896. Plea was to the effect that another suit was pending at the time of the commencement of this suit for an accounting between said parties, including the same two promissory notes. Replication filed February 24, 1896, setting forth that the case at bar is one for specific performance and not for an accounting. On motion of the plaintiff\u2019s attorney it is ordered that the defendant be and is hereby required to rejoin to the plaintiff\u2019s replication filed in said cause within ten days from this date.\u2014February 25, 1896. Demurrer filed March 3, 1896, to replication. Demurrer of plaintiff\u2019s replication to defendant\u2019s plea by order of court is carried back to said plea and sustained thereto, and it is ordered that the defendant be and is hereby required to plead over within five days from this date.\u2014March 19, 1896. Plea and affidavit filed March 24,1896, of another suit pending at the commencement of this suit, on the same notes. Defendant\u2019s plea stricken from the files and default of said defendant taken March 31,1896.\u201d\nIt needs no argument to show that nothing is thus presented from which we can determine whether the plea was a proper one or not. It is not for counsel to say what the plea was. That can only be shown by a proper abstract of the record. Moreover, no objection or exception to the ruling of the court is shown.\nThe judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Wilkin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles B. Stafford, for appellant.",
      "Ira W. & C. C. Buell, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George M. Chamberlin v. Eugene Cary.\nOpinion filed November 8, 1897.\n1. Appeals and errors\u2014alleged erroneous rulings not considered in absence of exceptions taken. An alleged erroneous ruling of the trial court in ordering pleas to be stricken from the files cannot be considered on appeal, where no exception is taken to the ruling in the lower court.\n2. Same\u2014plea which is to be passed, upon must be set out in the abstract. Alleged error of the trial court in striking a plea from the files can not be considered on appeal, where the abstract of record, instead of setting forth the plea, contains only a statement of counsel that the plea was to the effect that another suit was pending at the time of the commencement of this suit, etc.\nChamberlin v. Cary, 67 Ill. App. 542, 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. C. G. Neeley, Judge, presiding.\nCharles B. Stafford, for appellant.\nIra W. & C. C. Buell, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0034-01",
  "first_page_order": 34,
  "last_page_order": 35
}