{
  "id": 2543565,
  "name": "A. M. Earel v. Elizabeth Kickhofel",
  "name_abbreviation": "Earel v. Kickhofel",
  "decision_date": "1904-06-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "658",
  "last_page": "658",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "114 Ill. App. 658"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 1874,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "sha256": "c0c5c8b6c131aca662d624a4d1f37fb83fc59075fcb34c3fc4386e434556c411",
    "simhash": "1:975a42ab78c19fe8",
    "word_count": 313
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:53:49.110006+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. M. Earel v. Elizabeth Kickhofel."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gest\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis suit was commenced by appellee, Mrs. Kickhofel, before a justice of the peace and judgment was rendered in that court for plaintiff for $39.47. Appellant appealed to the Circuit Court and upon trial by jury a verdict for plaintiff was given and judgment rendered thereon for the sum of $40.85, and defendant brings the case here by appeal.\nThe defendant claimed that his connection with the matters of account which constitute the plaintiff\u2019s claim was simply as agent for a Mrs. Weihl, and that plaintiff was so informed and so knew when she was employed; he also claims that he as such 'agent had fully paid the plaintiff.\nIt is insisted that erroneous rulings were made by the court on the trial in admitting and rejecting proof and that erroneous instructions were given for plaintiff and proper instructions offered by the defendant were refused.\nNotwithstanding the smallness of the sum in controversy, we have carefully read the abstract and arguments and given the case full consideration. No good purpose would be subserved by extended discussion of the matters urged by counsel for appellant. No substantial error, no error that worked prejudice to the appellant, was committed by the trial court. We would not be justified in remanding this cause for a third trial.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gest"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph A. and Arthur E. Eoy, for appellant.",
      "J. I. Foreman and Ivins & Lancaster, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. M. Earel v. Elizabeth Kickhofel.\nI. Reversal\u2014when, will not be awarded. Where no substantial error has been committed in the trial of a cause, a reversal will not be awarded.\nProceeding commenced before justice'of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adams County; the Hon. J. C. Broady, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1903.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 28, 1904.\nJoseph A. and Arthur E. Eoy, for appellant.\nJ. I. Foreman and Ivins & Lancaster, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0658-01",
  "first_page_order": 674,
  "last_page_order": 674
}