{
  "id": 2556667,
  "name": "George S. Poppers v. Frank Schoenfeld",
  "name_abbreviation": "Poppers v. Schoenfeld",
  "decision_date": "1903-11-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "408",
  "last_page": "409",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "110 Ill. App. 408"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1669,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "sha256": "c16601ecb067264291e282b24e871d4e2e4ad773a047dc8d475904e931fb610b",
    "simhash": "1:dc367e447743e4aa",
    "word_count": 276
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:47.315792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George S. Poppers v. Frank Schoenfeld."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment for $737 recovered by appellee against appellant in an action of assumpsit for professional services as an attorney and counselor at law. The parties themselves were the only witnesses. Their testimony was contradictory as to the agreement under which the services were rendered. Upon the testimony of appellee the judgment is proper. Upon the testimony of' appellant the amount of the recovery should have been considerably less. Upon a former trial of the case there was a verdict and a judgment thereon for precisely the same sum. The instructions asked by appellant were given and were the only instructions given.\nThe weight and credit to 'be given to the testimony of witnesses is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury. Here it was for the jury to say whether they would believe the plaintiff or the defendant.\nThe verdict is supported by the testimony of the plaintiff, and we can not therefore say that the verdict is against or not supported by the evidence.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles E. Goldblum, attorney for appellant.",
      "Clark & Clark, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George S. Poppers v. Frank Schoenfeld.\n\u00cd. Witnesses\u2014 Weight and Credit to be Given to Testimony, a Questionfor the Jxiry.\u2014The weight and credit to be given to the testimony of witnesses, is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury.\nAssumpsit, for professional services. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Russell P. Goodwin, Judge presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1902.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 17, 1903.\nCharles E. Goldblum, attorney for appellant.\nClark & Clark, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0408-01",
  "first_page_order": 430,
  "last_page_order": 431
}