{
  "id": 2737740,
  "name": "J. A. Peterson, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Lubliner and Joseph Trinz, Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peterson v. Lubliner",
  "decision_date": "1911-10-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,761",
  "first_page": "38",
  "last_page": "39",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "163 Ill. App. 38"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 2019,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "sha256": "5f07c6bf8421b0b635adc11988cc651994f19bf97d50ea4df6d6cc5a045f929f",
    "simhash": "1:0ec3157c60ba3c68",
    "word_count": 353
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:45:41.237543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. A. Peterson, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Lubliner and Joseph Trinz, Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nSuit was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error for the value of certain garden plants sold by the former to the latter. There was a trial before the court without a jury, and a finding for the defendant in error and judgment upon the finding.\nWe are asked to reverse the judgment upon the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence. The judgment is for $56.75. Defendants admit an indebtedness of $18.75, and insist that the plants were sold by by sample, that the goods received were not up to the sample, with the exception of a portion of them which amounted in value to $18.75, and that the remainder were returned to the defendant in error.\nThe testimony on the part of the defendant in error consisted of a deposition made by J. A. Peterson, the defendant in error, and the answers to interrogatories propounded to the defendants below, which answers were made part of the case of the plaintiff below, who is the defendant in error here.\nUpon examination of the record we are satsified that the finding of the court is not justified by the evidence. It is apparent that there should be a judgment for some amount in favor of the defendant in error, but we are unable to say just what this amount should he. Additional evidence on a hew trial should disclose it.\nThe judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and demanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Laramie & Levy, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. A. Peterson, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Lubliner and Joseph Trinz, Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 15,761.\nMunicipal Court\u2014when judgment set aside. A judgment of the Municipal Court will be set aside by the Appellate Court if it is satisfied that the finding is not justified by tho evidence.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. McKenzie Cleland, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1909.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 3, 1911.\nLaramie & Levy, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0038-01",
  "first_page_order": 58,
  "last_page_order": 59
}