{
  "id": 2577885,
  "name": "First Finance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugh Ross and Margaret M. Ross, Individually and d/b/a Triangle Refrigeration Engineers, Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "First Finance Co. v. Ross",
  "decision_date": "1966-10-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 50,710",
  "first_page": "402",
  "last_page": "403",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 Ill. App. 2d 402"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill App2d 403",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2579175
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/75/0403-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 118,
    "char_count": 1142,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.613,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4711400162712189
    },
    "sha256": "1350b8ff580e367e3a45d645bacfb8a98f99f07a8082009238a687cbed9b48d8",
    "simhash": "1:bc3350c4fc7b403e",
    "word_count": 179
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:26.646330+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "First Finance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugh Ross and Margaret M. Ross, Individually and d/b/a Triangle Refrigeration Engineers, Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DRUCKER\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendants appeal from the denial of their petition for a new trial under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill Rev Stats, 1963, c 110, \u00a7 72).\nAfter a bench trial the defendants were found to have converted plaintiff\u2019s property and judgment was entered in the amount of $12,000 plus costs. In addition, the court made a special finding that malice was the gist of the action against one of the defendants, Hugh Ross. In their petition defendants allege that the testimony of plaintiff\u2019s sole witness was perjured.\nThe issues presented in this appeal are moot since the aforesaid judgment was reversed by this court [First Finance Co. v. Ross, 75 Ill App2d 403]. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.\nENGLISH and McCORMICK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DRUCKER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carl J. Greenberg, of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Masor, Baime & Gainer, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "First Finance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugh Ross and Margaret M. Ross, Individually and d/b/a Triangle Refrigeration Engineers, Defendants-Appellants.\nGen. No. 50,710.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nOctober 7, 1966.\nCarl J. Greenberg, of Chicago, for appellants.\nMasor, Baime & Gainer, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0402-01",
  "first_page_order": 408,
  "last_page_order": 409
}