{
  "id": 5346030,
  "name": "Andrew Olson, Defendant in Error, v. Carolus Carlson, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Olson v. Carlson",
  "decision_date": "1912-03-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,290",
  "first_page": "561",
  "last_page": "562",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 Ill. App. 561"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1779,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "sha256": "2207879bdaa4f544ced3deb4f3bffc596c6b44669998f403d94f18581fc5ff07",
    "simhash": "1:950c8e0b002e8878",
    "word_count": 296
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:34:38.590196+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Andrew Olson, Defendant in Error, v. Carolus Carlson, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAndrew Olson, plaintiff below, sued Carolus Carlson, defendant below, to recover the sum of $300, together with interest thereon, which said sum he says he loaned Carlson in June, 1904, at the latter\u2019s request. Olson demanded a jury trial, which was had, and a verdict for $390 was returned in his favor, upon which judgment was entered.\nCounsel for Carlson here contends that the verdict and judgment are manifestly against the weight of the evidence. To this we cannot agree. Olson testified very positively as to the making of the loan, and Carlson with equal positiveness denied that he ever borrowed or received any money from Olson. The evidence in the ease, as counsel for Carlson says in his brief,, was \u201cconflicting and irreconcilable\u201d. We believe that, under all the evidence, the jury was justified in returning the verdict, and we are not disposed to interfere with the judgment. And, in our opinion, the trial court did not err in refusing to admit certain evidence offered by the defendant, which refusal is complained of; nor do we think that certain remarks made by the trial court, and assigned as error, were prejudicial to the rights of the defendant. The judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Nels J. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John E. Erickson, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Andrew Olson, Defendant in Error, v. Carolus Carlson, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,290.\nVerdicts \u2014 when not disturbed as against the evidence. A verdict will not be set aside as against the evidence unless clearly and manifestly so.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Freeman K. .Blake, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 28, 1912.\nNels J. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn E. Erickson, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0561-01",
  "first_page_order": 579,
  "last_page_order": 580
}