Case Name: Ballington Booth v. Charles A. Gaither; Charles C. Lamos v. B. D. Marks
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1894-07-02
Citations: 54 Ill. App. 275
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ballington Booth v. Charles A. Gaither. Charles C. Lamos v. B. D. Marks.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 275–275

Head Matter:
Ballington Booth v. Charles A. Gaither. Charles C. Lamos v. B. D. Marks.
1. Record—Stipulation as to Bill of Exceptions.—A stipulation that the bill of exception smay be made a part of the record accomplishes nothing; the bill of exceptions is a part of the record without a stipulation.
Memorandum.—Appeals from the Superior and Circuit Courts of Cook County.
Heard in this court at the March term, 1894,
and affirmed.
Opinion filed July 2, 1894.
Charles E. Pope, attorney for Ballington Booth.
Thornton & Chancellor, attorneys for Charles A. Gaither.
Dahms, Langworthy & Poppenhusen, attorneys for Charles C. Lamos.
Wm. C. Hoyer and. Chas. E. Reeve, attorneys for B. D. Harks.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Waterman
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The errors said to exist in the record of each of these cases are alleged to arise out of the evidence adduced upon the trial.
In each, the original instead of a copy of the bill of exceptions is certified here under a stipulation, which is that the bill of exceptions may be made a part of the record. Such a stipulation accomplishes nothing. The bill of exceptions is a part of the record without stipulation.
We have so often, called attention to the statute under which the original of a bill of exceptions may be inserted in the transcript of the record instead of a copy, that further reference thereto seems useless. The respective judgments are affirmed.