{
  "id": 5264391,
  "name": "Prentice J. Douglass v. Alexander X. Parker and George M. Plumbe",
  "name_abbreviation": "Douglass v. Parker",
  "decision_date": "1867-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "146",
  "last_page": "147",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. 146"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2337,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8190050230440903e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7189482861742132
    },
    "sha256": "0350b561dcec26a28ce308adabe6baaeeab6d053e9bc3b6329ca55a695e773a1",
    "simhash": "1:3bf95556d92e9a81",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:56:56.175441+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Prentice J. Douglass v. Alexander X. Parker and George M. Plumbe."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThe errors assigned upon this record relate to the alleged ruling of the court upon a motion to dismiss for want of proper bond for costs, and upon questions of evidence.\nThere is however no bill of exceptions in the record, and these questions are therefore not before us. As we have often said, motions of this character only become a part of the record by means of a bill of exceptions.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. W. B. Porter, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. D. T. McIntyre, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Prentice J. Douglass v. Alexander X. Parker and George M. Plumbe.\n1. Motion\u2014must be preserved by Ull of exceptions. Where the ruling of the court upon a motion to dismiss for want of a proper bond for costs is assigned for error, such a motion only becomes a part of the record and is properly brought before this court by means of a bill of exceptions.\n2. Evidence\u2014questions of. The same rule applies where the errors assigned relate to questions of evidence.\nWbit of Ebbob to the Circuit Court of Coles county; the Hon. James Steele, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an .action of assumpsit, brought by Parker and Plumbe, in the Coles County Circuit Court, against Douglass, wherein, upon trial by the court at the October Term, 1866, the issue was found for the plaintiffs.\nIt would appear, that the plaintiffs, Parker and Plumbe, were non-residents, and that their attorney on the day suit was brought, filed a bond for costs in the following form :\n\u201cI hereby enter myself security for costs in the above entitled cause, and acknowledge myself bound to pay the same either to the officers of court or the opposite party, according to the statute in such ease made and provided. Witness my hand and seal this October 1st, 1866.\n\u201cD. T. McIntybb.\u201d\nUpon which the following indorsement was made:\n'\u201c\u25a0Filed, October 1st, 1866.\n\u201c H. C. Wobtham, Clerk.\"\nOn the first day of the term, defendant\u2019s counsel moved to dismiss the cause for want of a bond for costs, whereupon the plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys entered a cross motion for leave to file a new bond. The court overruled the motion to dismiss, and sustained the cross motion. The defendant assigns for error the action of the court in overruling the motion to dismiss, in granting plaintiffs leave to file a new bond, and in admitting the note in evidence under the common counts.\nMr. W. B. Porter, for the plaintiff in error.\nMr. D. T. McIntyre, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0146-01",
  "first_page_order": 146,
  "last_page_order": 147
}