{
  "id": 2578947,
  "name": "Francis Kirsch v. Frank Wolf et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kirsch v. Wolf",
  "decision_date": "1903-03-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "639",
  "last_page": "640",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 Ill. App. 639"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3354,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "sha256": "814e4cc4a750a67f0d9705080566a89f84da0cb923b4b8d6c5c409408e05a4fc",
    "simhash": "1:b8cab880054230f4",
    "word_count": 595
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:58:38.770440+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Francis Kirsch v. Frank Wolf et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Worthington\ndelivered the opinion of the court*.\nThis was an action of assumpsit brought by appellant against appellees in justice court. The case was appealed to the City Court of East St. Louis, and resulted in a verdict for appellees. Appellant is a physician, and sues appellees for services rendered them and their family, claiming $101.15 to be due him after allowing all credits.\nThis case turns upon this issue of fact: If there was a settlement made July 28,1898, and a balance agreed upon as due appellant, then there should have been a judgment for plaintiff.\nAppellee Frank Wolf testifies that there was no settlement. He admits, however, that appellant\u2019s bill\u2019 was presented to him at that time for $82.80, and that 'he then claimed a credit of $10, which was allowed, leaving a balance of $72.80.\nAppellant testifies that there was a settlement; that a credit of $10 was allowed on the account of $82.80; that the settlement was made in the presence of his druggist, and that the druggist entered it in his own handwriting in the ledger. A page of the ledger introduced in evidence, corroborates this testimony. He also testified that the entry was made in the usual course of business.\nGeorge Traub testifies that he was employed as druggist by appellee; that a bill of $82.80 was presented to Wolf, who asked for a credit of $5, and that the doctor allowed him a credit of $10; that he made the entry at that time in the ledger; that they agreed upon the amount at that time; that he heard all that was said; that they were in good humor, and there was no difficulty about the statement.\nThe weight of evidence shows a preponderance in favor of appellant\u2019s claim that an account was stated and agreed upon at that time.\nAppellee Mary Wolf testifies that she did not authorize her husband to make a settlement. But her testimony upon cross-examination indicates that she recognized him as her agent in these transactions with appellant* She testifies, referring to the balance of $72.80:\n\u201c Q. Did Mr. Wolf come home and tell you what the balance was ? A. I suppose he did.\nQ. How much was that ? A. I don\u2019t recollect.\nQ. The fact is, your husband went there several times to pay money, but you don\u2019t know whether he paid it or not ? A. He told me whenever he paid him, but I did not pay any attention to it.\nQ. You let Mr. Wolf transact that part of the business; pay the doctor and keep track of the receipts in this account, didn\u2019t you ? A. Yes, sir.\nQ. Were you satisfied with the payments your husband made? A. Yes, sir.\nQ. Were you satisfied with the way he transacted the business ? A. Yes,' sir.\u201d\nThe amount in litigation in this case is not large, but if anything is due appellant, he is entitled to it. From a careful examination of the evidence, we think the case should be submitted to another jury.\nJudgment reversed and case remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Worthington"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Blythe, attorney for appellant.",
      "Alexander Flannigen, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Francis Kirsch v. Frank Wolf et al.\n1. Account Stated\u2014Evidence.\u2014This case turning upon a mere issue of fact, the court find that the preponderance of evidence does not support the verdict of the jury.'\nAssumpsit.\u2014Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the. Hon. Silas Cook, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the August term, 1902.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 2, 1903.\nJ. W. Blythe, attorney for appellant.\nAlexander Flannigen, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0639-01",
  "first_page_order": 663,
  "last_page_order": 664
}