{
  "id": 5626354,
  "name": "W. E. Skinner v. D. Sullivan & Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Skinner v. D. Sullivan & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1907-04-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "93",
  "last_page": "94",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "227 Ill. 93"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 2104,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.71,
    "sha256": "091ba79193559edbefc052e9468684715c9189dcc46995c41b57e0ae8f901fc3",
    "simhash": "1:1063cc28092c84d2",
    "word_count": 362
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:43.577041+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. E. Skinner v. D. Sullivan & Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThis is an appeal, upon a certificate of importance, from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District affirming the judgment of the- superior court of Cook county for $500, rendered against appellant in an action of assumpsit on a promissory note.\nIn the court below appellant sought to prove that he had signed the note in question merely as surety for his brother, H. O. Skinner, and that the plaintiff had for a valuable consideration extended the time of payment by an agreement with the principal maker, without the consent of appellant. Whether such agreement existed was a disputed question of fact. The jury found against appellant upon this as well as all other issues in the case, and the judgment rendered upon the verdict has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. The affirmance of this judgment by the Appellate Court is final and conclusive of all questions of fact in this court. Appellant made no motion in the trial court to direct a verdict in his favor, and there is no assignment of error argued in this court upon the giving or refusing of instructions or upon the rulings of the trial court upon the introduction of the evidence. There is, therefore, no question saved in this record for the decision of this court.\nThe judgment below is therefore affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston, Payne & Strawn, (Edward W. Everett, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Albert M. Kales, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. E. Skinner v. D. Sullivan & Co.\nOpinion filed April 18, 1907.\nAppeals and errors-\u2014when no question is presented for the Supreme Court. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment in an action at law, if there was no motion to direct a verdict in the trial court and no assignment of error argued as to the giving or refusal of instructions or the admission or exclusion of evidence, there is no question presented for review by the Supreme Court.\nAppeal from the Branch Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JESSE Holdom, Judge, presiding.\nWinston, Payne & Strawn, (Edward W. Everett, of counsel,) for appellant.\nAlbert M. Kales, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0093-01",
  "first_page_order": 93,
  "last_page_order": 94
}