{
  "id": 5316175,
  "name": "William H. Cogshall v. John M. Beesley, Guardian, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cogshall v. Beesley",
  "decision_date": "1875-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "445",
  "last_page": "447",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 Ill. 445"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5293536
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/42/0123-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 3274,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1218217607034991e-06,
      "percentile": 0.9860650176902206
    },
    "sha256": "b3a65069e7ea7b465252d386e1342b018c3f43428e4975c6a2fd94af63ad4869",
    "simhash": "1:8ee749c43aa54808",
    "word_count": 562
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:10.100826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William H. Cogshall v. John M. Beesley, Guardian, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Craig\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought by appellee, in the circuit court of Mason county, against appellant and Francis S. Cogshall.\nA trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee for \u00a7398.50. A motion was made for a new trial, whereupon appellee entered a motion to amend his declaration and dismiss as to Francis S. Cogshall, which the court allowed, and rendered judgment in favor of Francis S. Cogshall for his costs, against appellee.\nThe court then overruled the motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment upon the verdict against appellant.\nThe decision of the court in allowing the amendment to the declaration, and the dismissal of the suit as to Francis S. Cogshall, is assigned as error.\nThe amendment allowed by the court was proper under the Practice Act. Revised Statutes of 1874, page 778, sec. 24.\nIt is also insisted by appellant that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.\nThe evidence, so far as the record discloses it, is conflicting. This court has repeatedly held, the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed where there is a conflict in the testimony, unless the verdict is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Such, however, is not this case. But, independent of this question, we could not disturb the verdict for another reason: the bill of exceptions in the record does not purport to contain all the evidence.\nThe practice is well settled, that, where the bill of exceptions fails to show that it contains all the evidence in the case, we will not examine whether the evidence it does contain Supports the verdict. Minor v. Phillips, 42 Ill. 123.\nIt is true, the reporter who reported the evidence on the trial, adds a certificate at the foot of the testimony that the foregoing is all the evidence in the case, but the judge before whom the cause was tried does not state that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence, or that the certificate of the reporter is even a part of the record.\nThe judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Craig"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Fullerton & Rogers, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Wallace & Freeman, and Messrs. Dearborn & Campbell, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William H. Cogshall v. John M. Beesley, Guardian, etc.\n1. Amendment\u2014of deelm-ation after verdict. Under the practice act of 1874, the court may allow the plaintiff, after verdict against two defendants, to amend his declaration by discontinuing the suit as to one of the defendants.\n2. Bill op exceptions\u2014must show that it contains all the evidence. Where a bill of exceptions fails to show that it contains all the evidence, this court will not examine whether the evidence it does contain supports the verdict. The certificate of the reporter who reported the evidence, at the foot of the testimony, that it contains all the evidence, will not answer. The judge who tried the case must so certify.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Mason county; the Hon. Lyman Lacey, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion of the court states the facts of the.case necessary to an understanding of the points decided, except that the amendment of the declaration was simply to strike out the name of Francis S. Cogshall, and discontinue the suit as to him.\nMessrs. Fullerton & Rogers, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Wallace & Freeman, and Messrs. Dearborn & Campbell, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0445-01",
  "first_page_order": 447,
  "last_page_order": 449
}