{
  "id": 826258,
  "name": "Board of Trustees of Town 13 South, Range 3 West, v. Joshua L. Misenheimer et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Board of Trustees of Town 13 South, Range 3 West v. Misenheimer",
  "decision_date": "1878-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "151",
  "last_page": "152",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 Ill. 151"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill. 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2620091
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/65/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5257364
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/35/0346-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 1773,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8737346209934137e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8430089939606518
    },
    "sha256": "20960a61364887c563a0dc6e7d3a33dc1353b2cbedcbbd09c323b4b9f0906529",
    "simhash": "1:e70819256be00677",
    "word_count": 314
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:36:47.067630+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Board of Trustees of Town 13 South, Range 3 West, v. Joshua L. Misenheimer et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThe bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, and it is, therefore, impossible for us to say that the evidence below did not authorize the verdict returned by the jury. Ottawa Gaslight and Coke Company v. Graham, 35 Ill. 346; Buckland v. Goddard, 36 id. 206; Ballance v. Leonard, 37 id. 44; Esty v. Grant, 55 id. 341; Goodrich v. Minonk, 62 id. 121; Wilson v. McDowell, 65 id. 522; Culliner v. Nash, 76 id. 515; Henry v. Halloway, 78 id. 356.\nIt does not appear that any exception was taken at the time to the giving or refusing of instructions, nor to the overruling of the motion for a new trial. Any question, therefore, that might otherwise have been raised on these rulings, can not be considered. Grimes v. Butts, 65 Ill. 347 ; St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad Company v. Dorsey, 68 id. 326; Brown v. Clement, id. 192; Seibel v. Vaughan, 69 id. 257.\nThe questions attempted to be discussed in appellants\u2019 brief, can not, therefore, be considered.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Jackson Frick, for the appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Board of Trustees of Town 13 South, Range 3 West, v. Joshua L. Misenheimer et al.\n1. New trial\u2014bill of exceptions must show the evidence. When the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, it is impossible for this court to say that the evidence below did not authorize the verdict.\n2. Exception\u2014necessary to present questions to this court. Where it does not appear that any exception was taken at the time to the giving or refusing of instructions, or to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, the correctness of the ruling below can not be considered by this court.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Union county; the Hon. Monroe C. Crawford, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Jackson Frick, for the appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0151-01",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 152
}