{
  "id": 2758686,
  "name": "M. L. Greenwald and B. P. Greenwald, Defendants in Error, v. M. Weinberg, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Greenwald v. Weinberg",
  "decision_date": "1912-11-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,567",
  "first_page": "439",
  "last_page": "441",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 Ill. App. 439"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 3532,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.540526342670931e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4011166288073166
    },
    "sha256": "12c04c8860a28005fec223d8243ed7a0746d1e46e7c83843d445e361d9822e75",
    "simhash": "1:b060e1eb9ea23968",
    "word_count": 643
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:56:54.106977+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. L. Greenwald and B. P. Greenwald, Defendants in Error, v. M. Weinberg, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe only ground of reversal urged is that the verdict is so contrary to the evidence that the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial. In the brief for plaintiffs in error it is stated that the questions in dispute are:\n\u201cFirst. Was this a leasing for a year or from month to month?\n\u201cSecond. If it was a leasing for a year, was the term to begin on the 23d of April, 1908, or on the first of May, 1908?\n\u201cThird. What was the agreement as to payment for gas? Was plaintiff in error to get the gas free or was he to pay for it?\n\u201cFourth. Was the gas or electric light bill or either of them paid for the month of December, 1908 ? \u2019 \u2019\nOn each of the disputed questions above stated the testimony is conflicting, and we cannot on a review of the evidence say that the jury might not properly find on each of such disputed questions against the contention of plaintiffs in error. The case is one of conflicting testimony, where the ^erdict is conclusive, and the trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial.\nThe judgment is affirmed,\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "P. J. Murphy and William Graham, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Noble T. Robbins and John J. Poulton, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. L. Greenwald and B. P. Greenwald, Defendants in Error, v. M. Weinberg, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,567.\nAppeals and ebbobs\u2014conflicting evidence. In an action on a verbal lease defendants\u2019 motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence is properly denied where it does not appear to the court on a review of the evidence that the jury did not find properly on each of the issues,\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward A. Dicker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 18, 1912.\nStatement by the Court. April 23, 1908,- plaintiffs M. L. and B. P. Greenwald leased to defendant Weinberg at a rental of $75 per month one-half of a certain store, plaintiffs retaining and occupying the other half. The defendant occupied his half of the store up to January 30, 1909. The agreement was verbal and the parties disagree as to its terms. Plaintiffs contend that the leasing was for a year from April 23d; that defendant took possession on that day and that after July 1, 1908, defendant was to pay one-half of the cost of the gas and two-thirds of the cost of the electricity consumed in lighting the store except during December, when each party was to pay one-half of the cost of the electric lighting. The defendant contends that the agreement was that he should have gas free and should pay one-half of the cost of the electric lighting after July 1, that the leasing, was from month to month, that he did not take possession April 23, but that it was agreed that he should take possession May 1, and he did not take possession until that day; that he paid no gas bills before November 1; that plaintiffs then notified him that he must pay his own gas bills and that if he did not do so they would give him a thirty days\u2019 notice; that he then said that he would pay for the gas he used during November and December; that he paid for gas and electric lighting during November and December and rent up to the last day of January.\nPlaintiffs brought suit in the Municipal Court for $212.94, had a verdict for $181.03, the court denied defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict, to reverse which the defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nP. J. Murphy and William Graham, for plaintiff in error.\nNoble T. Robbins and John J. Poulton, for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0439-01",
  "first_page_order": 457,
  "last_page_order": 459
}