{
  "id": 5277837,
  "name": "Leota David et al. Appellants, vs. F. S. David et al. Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "David v. David",
  "decision_date": "1935-02-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 22378",
  "first_page": "285",
  "last_page": "286",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "359 Ill. 285"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "266 Ill. 548",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4786703
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/266/0548-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1967,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1572543418554518
    },
    "sha256": "0973316551dd0b13b1a4213f021627a33ea5403752759e8428065c82e39541cd",
    "simhash": "1:eb263b032aceae32",
    "word_count": 335
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:53:43.662837+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Leota David et al. Appellants, vs. F. S. David et al. Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Orr\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe consideration of this appeal from the circuit court of Lawrence county is limited to a review of the common law record and the errors assigned and argued by appellants. This situation has arisen because, on motion of appellees, the bill of exceptions was stricken from the record, and under the rules of this court appellees\u2019 briefs were received too late to be filed. The appeal was taken from a decree which dismissed appellants\u2019 bill of complaint for want of equity.\nThere were five assignments of error, as follows: \u201c(1) The court erred in finding the issues for the appellees and dismissing the bill of appellants for want of equity; (2) the court erred in admitting evidence upon the part of appellees, particularly the evidence of F. S. David, L. C. David and C. O. David, who testified relative to transactions between themselves and a deceased brother, Ira Clyde David; (3) the decree is contrary to law; (4) the decree is contrary to equity; (5) the decree is contrary to the evidence in this case.\u201d\nThe points argued in the brief of appellants are confined entirely to a consideration of the evidence and the admissibility of certain testimony. The questions raised in the various assignments of error can only be determined by a consideration of the evidence adduced on the trial\u2014 matters contained in the bill of exceptions and not contained in the common law record. Since the bill of exceptions has been stricken, nothing remains which can be reviewed, and the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. People v. Rosenwald, 266 Ill. 548; People v. Hoffman, 344 id. 533; People v. Stahulak, 353 id. 348; People v. Keller, 353 id. 411.\nThe judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Orr"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George W. Lackey, for appellants.",
      "R. E. Pearce, and Sumner & Lewis, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 22378.\nLeota David et al. Appellants, vs. F. S. David et al. Appellees.\nOpinion filed February 15, 1935.\nGeorge W. Lackey, for appellants.\nR. E. Pearce, and Sumner & Lewis, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0285-01",
  "first_page_order": 285,
  "last_page_order": 286
}