{
  "id": 2706875,
  "name": "Story Finishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Kerting, Plaintiff, in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Story Finishing Co. v. Kerting",
  "decision_date": "1910-10-20",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,349",
  "first_page": "221",
  "last_page": "222",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 Ill. App. 221"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1933,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "sha256": "38736e3b44cfee6414f3d12672257fd6f52209268c7940cce9b7ed1563593f22",
    "simhash": "1:c6e3cf2a466688ea",
    "word_count": 312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:34.372632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Story Finishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Kerting, Plaintiff, in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff\u2019s claim in this case was for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant amounting, at the price charged by plaintiff, to $1,628.33. Plaintiff admitted that defendant had made payments amounting to $1,503.23, leaving a balance due plaintiff, according to its contention, of $125, and for that sum plaintiff had judgment. The sale and delivery of the goods were not disputed, but the contention of the defendant was that for many of the goods plaintiff had overcharged defendant; that such overcharges amounted to $296.47, and that defendant had paid plaintiff $200 more than the sum of $1,503.23, for which plaintiff had given him credit. On cross-examination defendant was asked: \u201cExcept for these overcharges and these cash payments which you claim in your statement, this bill which ife rendered you is correct ?\u201d and answered: \u201cYes sir, otherwise it is correct.\u201d\nThe only question presented in the case are questions of fact. The testimony both on the question of overcharges, and of payments, not credited, was conflicting. The trial judge heard the witnesses and in effect found, that the plaintiff had not overcharged the defendant and had credited him with all the money he had paid plaintiff. We cannot, on the evidence in the record, say that such finding is against the evidence, and the judgment will therefore he affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Leon S. Alschuler, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ferguson & Goodnow, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Story Finishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Kerting, Plaintiff, in Error.\nGen. No. 15,349.\nVerdicts-\u2014when not disturbed. A verdict will not be set aside on review as against the weight of the evidence unless clearly and manifestly so.\nAssumpsit. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. George J. Cowing, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 20, 1910.\nLeon S. Alschuler, for plaintiff in error.\nFerguson & Goodnow, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0221-01",
  "first_page_order": 239,
  "last_page_order": 240
}