{
  "id": 2461954,
  "name": "Aaron Corey, appellant, v. William Russell, appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Corey v. Russell",
  "decision_date": "1846-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "366",
  "last_page": "367",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Gilm. 366"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 Ill. 366"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Scam. 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2483438
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/2/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Blackf. 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Blackf.",
      "case_ids": [
        1389492
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/blackf/1/0016-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Scam. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        6105960
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/5/0434-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 2129,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.619,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.27732345557104e-07,
      "percentile": 0.870558669636724
    },
    "sha256": "08f7e5d2e3f857135bb96bb018e908045874a0f7e64e747dc0ab1d67db80c3f0",
    "simhash": "1:0183b78deb86831d",
    "word_count": 365
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:07:50.920067+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Aaron Corey, appellant, v. William Russell, appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "The Opinion of the Court was delivered by\nTreat, J.\nIt appears from the record in this case, that the Madison Circuit Court, at its May term 1846, denied an application of Aaron Corey to quash two executions in favor of William Russell and against said Corey. That decision is now assigned for error. The testimony on which the Circuit Court based its decision is not before us, and we cannot therefore inquire into the propriety of the decision. The clerk has copied into the transcript certain papers, which were probably read as evidence on the hearing of the motion. That, however, does not make them a part of the record. The appellant should have introduced the evidence into the record by tendering a bill of exceptions. See the case of Saunders v. McCollins, 4 Scam. 419, and the cases there referred to.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed with costs.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Treat, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Chickering, and W. Martin, for the appellant.",
      "L. B. Parsons, Jr., and L. Trumbull, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Aaron Corey, appellant, v. William Russell, appellee.\nJlppeal from Madison.\nMotions were made in the Circuit Court to quash two executions, which were denied. Certain papers were copied into the transcript, but no bill of exceptions was taken. The decision of the Circuit Court was assigned for error: Held, that the papers, in order to be regarded as evidence, should have been incorporated in a bill of exceptions.\nMotions, in the Madison Circuit Court, to quash two executions issued from that Court in -favor of appellee against appellant, made by the appellant at the May term 1846, the Hon. John D. Cat\u00f3n presiding. On hearing the motions, the Court denied the same, and an appeal was taken from that decision.\nJ. W. Chickering, and W. Martin, for the appellant.\nL. B. Parsons, Jr., and L. Trumbull, for the appellee.\nThe record contained no bill of exceptions. There is nothing before this Court except the order of the Court below refusing the motion to quash, and consequently this Court cannot judge of the correctness of the decision below. Browder v. Johnson, Bre. 62; Kimmel v. Shultz, Ib. 129; Rust v. Frothingham, Ib. 258; Sims v. Hugsly, Bre. App. 27; Cole v. Driskell, 1 Blackf. 16; Vanlandingham v. Fellows, 1 Scam. 233."
  },
  "file_name": "0366-01",
  "first_page_order": 378,
  "last_page_order": 379
}