{
  "id": 5240077,
  "name": "Francis M. Griffin v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Griffin v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1870-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "317",
  "last_page": "318",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "57 Ill. 317"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 2015,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.189069188753082e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7735788843287774
    },
    "sha256": "f21cbeaeddeb0f32ac839eff21e4b479d2eaf659253f0885feec67c693b20637",
    "simhash": "1:a92f6467dc5ea99d",
    "word_count": 340
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:32.202804+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Francis M. Griffin v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nWe have carefully and repeatedly examined the record in this case, and find no error in it. The certificate of publication of the notice of the application for judgment differs from those we have held bad, in that it does not have the words, \u201cexclusive of Sundays and holidays, \u201d but certifies that the notice has been published ten days consecutively, commencing with the 18th day of January, 1869. When such language is used in the certificate, as that the court can ascertain the date, of the first and last papers containing the notice, it is sufficient. There is nothing here to interrupt the court.\nNone of the evidence offered constitutes any defense. Plaintiff in error having called Harlmess as a witness, had no right to impeach him, by proving that he had made contrary statements out of court.\nNo error appearing in the record, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Edward Roby, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. M. F. Ttjlby, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Francis M. Griffin v. The City of Chicago.\n1. Special assessments in Chicago\u2014certificate of publication. The certificate of publication of the notice of an application for judgment upon a special assessment, did not state that it was published a certain number of days, \u201c exclusive of Sundays and holidays, \u201d but certified that the notice had been published ten days consecutively, commencing with the 18th day of January, 1869: EM, the certificate was sufficient, as, from the language used, the court could ascertain the dates of the first and last papers containing the notice.\n2. Witness\u2014impeachment. A party can not impeach a witness called by himself, by proving that he had made contrary statements out of court.\nWrit of Error to the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an application for a judgment, in the court below, upon a special assessment warrant.\nThe owner of the property against which the judgment was rendered, sued out this writ of error.\nMr. Edward Roby, for the plaintiff in error.\nMr. M. F. Ttjlby, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0317-01",
  "first_page_order": 325,
  "last_page_order": 326
}