{
  "id": 3174054,
  "name": "Solon Banfill v. Martha A. Twyman et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Banfill v. Twyman",
  "decision_date": "1898-02-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "123",
  "last_page": "125",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 Ill. 123"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2450419
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/71/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 Ill. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3104945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/165/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5441301
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/137/0091-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 215,
    "char_count": 3032,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.595,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3239378855151553e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6273483511973091
    },
    "sha256": "af45a1e87059fed276b0b693e6c3811c60549aa076770eeffe4b6d2048fff72e",
    "simhash": "1:d8c889808e05cb92",
    "word_count": 517
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:25:05.189436+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Solon Banfill v. Martha A. Twyman et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Cartwright\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis suit was brought by appellant, and his declaration contained counts in case and trespass, charging appellees with despoiling certain real estate of lumber, brick and other articles alleged to have been appurtenant to such real estate. An issue was presented by a plea of not guilty, and the parties waived a jury and submitted the issue to the court. Upon a trial the issue was found for the appellees and judgment was entered accordingly. The judgment has been,affirmed by the Appellate Court.\nThe court sustained a demurrer to the first count of the declaration, but the decision was not assig\u00abned for error in the Appellate Court. The alleged errors presented to that court were, that the trial court erred in admitting improper evidence on the part of appellees and refusing to admit proper evidence offered by appellant; that the finding was contrary to the evidence and the law, and that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial and in rendering judgment. Appellant has not, in his brief, pointed out any supposed error in admitting or rejecting evidence, and the assignments of error in that regard are abandoned. City of Mt. Carmel v. Howell, 137 Ill. 91; Harris v. Shebek, 151 id. 287; City of Springfield v. Coe, 166 id. 22.\nHo proposition of law was submitted to the trial judge to be held or refused. The only argument here is, that under the evidence appellant was entitled to recover, and upon this question of fact the judgment of the Appellate Court is final. There is no question of law to be considered, and under numerous decisions the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Ottawa, 165 Ill. 207.\nThe judgment is affirmed. judgment affirmed.\nMr. Justice Boggs took no part in this decision.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Cartwright"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Solon Banfill, pro se, and W. W. Meloan, for appellant.",
      "Sherman & Tunnicliffe, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Solon Banfill v. Martha A. Twyman et al.\nOpinion filed February 14, 1898\nRehearing denied April 7, 1898.\n1. Appeals and errors\u2014failure to point out supposed errors in brief is a waiver. Failure of appellant to point out in his brief supposed errors of the court in the admission or rejection of evidence is an abandonment of the assignment of error in that regard.\n2. Same\u2014whether plaintiff was entitled to recover under the evidence is a question settled in Appellate Court. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the evidence is a question finally settled by the judgment of the Appellate Court.\n3. Same\u2014when Appellate Court\u2019s judgment must be affirmed. Where, in suits at law tried without a jury, no propositions of law are submitted or questions of law otherwise preserved for review, the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed.\nBanfill v. Twyman, 71 Ill. App. 253, affirmed.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the Third District;\u2014heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of McDonough county; the Hon. Charles J. Scofield, Judge, presiding.\nSolon Banfill, pro se, and W. W. Meloan, for appellant.\nSherman & Tunnicliffe, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0123-01",
  "first_page_order": 123,
  "last_page_order": 125
}