{
  "id": 2552517,
  "name": "George Williams, Appellant, v. George J. Frank, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Frank",
  "decision_date": "1967-06-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 50,642",
  "first_page": "85",
  "last_page": "86",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 Ill. App. 2d 85"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "103 NE2d 383",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 Ill App 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2431963,
        2431861
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/345/0410-01",
        "/ill-app/345/0410-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 NE2d 376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 Ill App 467",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3198792
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "471"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/289/0467-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2575805
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/11/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 NE2d 536",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill App2d 210",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5159543
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/11/0210-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2387,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.626,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.561530397549526e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5254188564661492
    },
    "sha256": "671c8fc0508eb3bce39879f26faf67300ad50b8d7578bad7f52334e198861c52",
    "simhash": "1:6efe240635251958",
    "word_count": 407
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:40.913901+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George Williams, Appellant, v. George J. Frank, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff\u2019s complaint alleged that on February 3, 1965, he had done some painting for defendant in an apartment building in Skokie at an agreed price of $75; that a dispute arose between the parties as to whether there should have been a second coat of paint; that defendant sold the premises and turned over $75 to the new owner with directions to fight it out with plaintiff; that defendant refused plaintiff\u2019s demand for payment of $75. The complaint, which was filed on February 16, 1965, sought a judgment for the $75 and for $25 per day for \u201ccost and expenses incurred on account of delay.\u201d\nDefendant answered, alleging essentially that the work done by plaintiff had been performed not for defendant but for the new owner. Defendant also moved for summary judgment. This motion remained undisposed of when, as disclosed by the record, the case came on for trial in regular course, evidence was submitted to the court without a jury, and judgment was entered for plaintiff against defendant for $75 and costs.\nPlaintiff, pro se, has appealed on the ground that he is entitled to \u201c$25.00 per day for harassment and time lost,\u201d and on the ground that he was entitled to a jury trial. Defendant has appeared but filed no brief.\nThe record contains no report of proceedings, so we have nothing before us which we might consider as supporting plaintiff\u2019s claim for special damages, nor is there any indication in the record that plaintiff interposed any objection to trial without a jury.\nAs to a jury trial, the Clerk has certified in the record that \u201ca complaint and Jury Demand was filed ... in words and figures following to wit\u201d: The document which follows does not include a jury demand. In any event, plaintiff waived his jury demand by proceeding to trial before the court without a jury. Anderson v. Industrial Molasses Corp., 11 Ill App2d 210, 136 NE2d 536, citing Burgwin v. Babcock, 11 Ill 28; Harris v. Juenger, 289 Ill App 467, 471, 7 NE2d 376; Anzalone v. Johnson, 345 Ill App 410,103 NE2d 383; ILP, Juries, \u00a7 32.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDRUCKER and McCORMICK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE ENGLISH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George Williams, pro se, of Chicago, appellant.",
      "No brief filed for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George Williams, Appellant, v. George J. Frank, Appellee.\nGen. No. 50,642.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nJune 30, 1967.\nGeorge Williams, pro se, of Chicago, appellant.\nNo brief filed for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0085-01",
  "first_page_order": 91,
  "last_page_order": 92
}