{
  "id": 5342899,
  "name": "Max Herman, Defendant in Error, v. Wolf Herman, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Herman v. Herman",
  "decision_date": "1912-10-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,235",
  "first_page": "174",
  "last_page": "175",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "172 Ill. App. 174"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1504,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "sha256": "65088fea57ddae727385cc6742559471c02c36eaf986bc84a91e1e282ec5e13a",
    "simhash": "1:bed7e49c1eebac3a",
    "word_count": 261
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:03:04.791769+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Max Herman, Defendant in Error, v. Wolf Herman, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion, of the court.\nSuit was brought upon a collateral promissory note. After a default was claimed to have been made in the payment of instalments due upon the note in accordance with its terms, the collateral was sold or alleged to have been' sold by the plaintiff. A claim of set-off was interposed by the defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $50.\nFrom the record it would appear that the note was for the sum of $435; that $10 was paid upon it soon after its date; that the court allowed the defendant $300 as for the amount received on the sale of collateral, and also allowed $75 upon the claim of set-off. The argument presented rests entirely upon the questions of fact.\nWe have carefully examined the record, and are unable to say that the conclusion reached by the trial court was against the weight of the evidence, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel J. Richman, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Max Herman, Defendant in Error, v. Wolf Herman, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,235.\nBills and notes \u2014 sufficiency of evidence in action oil. In an action on a collateral promissory note tried by a court without a jury, evidence held to sustain a finding for plaintiff.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William W. Maxwell, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 1, 1912.\nSamuel J. Richman, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0174-01",
  "first_page_order": 192,
  "last_page_order": 193
}