{
  "id": 2496213,
  "name": "Charles W. Thomas v. The Consolidated Coal Company of St. Louis",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thomas v. Consolidated Coal Co.",
  "decision_date": "1905-09-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "465",
  "last_page": "465",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 Ill. App. 465"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1730,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "sha256": "e6adb92be7e27ed51071ca4fb66f1bb02e3983a521249e53633819532321af09",
    "simhash": "1:8b33cd68fa2eaab9",
    "word_count": 297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:14.266561+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles W. Thomas v. The Consolidated Coal Company of St. Louis."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Myers\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an action of assumpsit brought by plaintiff in error against the defendant in error to recover for services rendered as an attorney- and expenses incurred at and. by request of defendant, claiming as due and unpaid the sum of $1,516. The defendant tiled the plea of general issue, and special pleas of payment and the St\u00e1tute of Limitation. Eeplications were filed. By consent of parties the case was tried by the court without a jury. The court found the issues for the defendant and entered judgment on finding against plaintiff for costs, from which the record is brought to this court by plaintiff on writ of error. The plaintiff\u2019s contention on errors assigned is that the judgment should have been for the plaintiff instead of the defendant, the only question being whether the finding and judgment of the Circuit Court was warranted by the evidence. After a careful examination of the abstract and consideration of all the testimony and documentary evidence presented on the trial, we are of opinion that the judgment is right under the law and the evidence and ought to be affirmed.\nAffirmed\u201e",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Myers"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "August Barthel, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Forman & Whitnel, for defendant in error; L. D. Turner, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles W. Thomas v. The Consolidated Coal Company of St. Louis.\n1. Finding of court\u2014when not disturbed. The finding of the court in a trial at law without a jury will not be disturbed as against the weight of the evidence unless clearly and palpably so.\nAction of assumpsit. Error to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County; the Hon. R. D. W. Holder, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1905.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 8, 1905.\nAugust Barthel, for plaintiff in error.\nForman & Whitnel, for defendant in error; L. D. Turner, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0465-01",
  "first_page_order": 483,
  "last_page_order": 483
}