{
  "id": 2537839,
  "name": "Charles Diefenthaler v. Wilson S. Hall",
  "name_abbreviation": "Diefenthaler v. Hall",
  "decision_date": "1904-10-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "422",
  "last_page": "423",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 Ill. App. 422"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. App. 639",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        871190
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/96/0639-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2281,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08192717027131698
    },
    "sha256": "13df543e600b7866cfaf7e284095564bba393ef6f0e76c3824eef1b3503e348a",
    "simhash": "1:7bd36ad40d0f8866",
    "word_count": 391
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:54.720168+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Diefenthaler v. Wilson S. Hall."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gest\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis case was in this court once before on appeal by the same party, the defendant in the suit, and was reversed and remanded for error in instructions. 96 Ill. App. 639. We are compelled to make the same order now and for the like reason. As the case is now presented there was no question of fact for the determination of the jury but this: at the time when Diefenthaler signed the note with D. J. Sloan, was it agreed or understood between him and Hall or did Hall know that the note was to be signed also by Bruce Sloan and Lige Bass as co-sureties with Diefenthaler before it should be complete and be delivered to Hall ? Instruction numbered two for plaintiff should not have been given; it was a mere abstract proposition of law and was calculated to mislead the jury. It gave no light whatever on the question to be determined. Instruction numbered three for plaintiff speaks of snares, devices and tricks, and states that it was necessary for defendant to show that 'Hall practiced such snares, devices and tricks upon Diefenthaler, in getting his signature to the note, or else the jury must find for the plaintiff. There is no question in the 'case of snares, devices and tricks. Instructions numbered seven, eight and nine were wholly inapplicable to any evidence in the case.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gest"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. C. Kelley and E. A. Richardson, for appellant.",
      "William H. Craig and Chafee & Chew, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Diefenthaler v. Wilson S. Hall.\n1. Instruction\u2014when giving of, containing abstract proposition of law, error. The giving of an instruction which merely contains an abstract proposition of law is error where it was calculated to mislead the'jury.\n2. Instruction\u2014should be confined to issues. An instruction which speaks of snares, devices and tricks and states that it was necessary for the defendant to show that the same were practiced, is erroneous and ground for reversal, where there was in the case no question of snares, devices and tricks.\nAction of assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Shelby County; the Hon. Samuel L. Dwight, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1904.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 14, 1904.\nW. C. Kelley and E. A. Richardson, for appellant.\nWilliam H. Craig and Chafee & Chew, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0422-01",
  "first_page_order": 440,
  "last_page_order": 441
}