{
  "id": 5320494,
  "name": "Frank Schoenfeldt, Plaintiff in Error, v. Henry Reineck, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schoenfeldt v. Reineck",
  "decision_date": "1910-12-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,215",
  "first_page": "96",
  "last_page": "97",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 Ill. App. 96"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1627,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "sha256": "a50efdef1251b796f5159fd9409cf57c6a3a63a2f6e38870892a37c68e91b30f",
    "simhash": "1:c73e0848146bca2c",
    "word_count": 267
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:35.030835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Schoenfeldt, Plaintiff in Error, v. Henry Reineck, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Mack\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff sued for $75 on an alleged agreement to pay for extras. Defendant denied the agreement and counterclaimed for $22.94 for groceries supplied. A jury was waived; and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant for $22.94 on findings by the court.\nNo question is raised as to the counterclaim.\nPlaintiff was architect and contractor. He was paid in full the contract price for a small building. In digging for the foundation it was found that a neighbor\u2019s house projected on defendant\u2019s ground which plaintiff claimed necessitated a change in the plans; that he told defendant this would cost $75 of which he would stand $25 if the defendant would pay $50 and that defendant agreed. Defendant claims that he never so agreed bnt told plaintiff he could have the damages which plaintiff said could be gotten from the neighbor.\nWhile plaintiff is supported by two and defendant by only one witness, we cannot say that the evidence so clearly preponderates in plaintiff\u2019s favor as to justify a reversal.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Mack"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Howard E. Leach, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Sullivan & Jarrett, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Schoenfeldt, Plaintiff in Error, v. Henry Reineck, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 15,215.\nVerdicts\u2014when not disturbed as against the evidence. A verdict will not he set aside as against the evidence unless clearly and manifestly so.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry C. Beitler, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 2, 1910.\nRehearing denied December 16, 1910.\nHoward E. Leach, for plaintiff in error.\nSullivan & Jarrett, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0096-01",
  "first_page_order": 114,
  "last_page_order": 115
}