{
  "id": 2755716,
  "name": "George M. Poe, Defendant in Error, v. Solomon Pevsner, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Poe v. Pevsner",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,579",
  "first_page": "394",
  "last_page": "395",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "175 Ill. App. 394"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1515,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "sha256": "f44a3b2d3017ed98924c0b3bb246263c507b5102f0e767ae4cfd1c3bc64f3c6d",
    "simhash": "1:3d29cc0ddac999fc",
    "word_count": 261
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:29.550855+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George M. Poe, Defendant in Error, v. Solomon Pevsner, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this case plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendant for the value of two rings delivered to the latter\u2019s son. The sole question argued is that the evidence does not establish the agency of the son to procure them. Inasmuch as it appears from the record that the defendant, a few days after the rings were obtained, sent a postal card to the plaintiff saying, \u201cTour two rings I sold to Charlie Hertenstein for $350, * * * an'd I will make it good,\u201d he is in no position to claim that he did not authorize his son to get them. This evidence not having been denied it alone justified the court\u2019s finding of liability, and, therefore, the question of agency becomes academic and need not be considered.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shulman & Shulman, for plaintiff in error; E. N. Zoline, of counsel.",
      "John K. PrindvhjLE, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George M. Poe, Defendant in Error, v. Solomon Pevsner, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,579.\nParent and child\u2014liability of parent for goods obtained by child. Where a son obtains rings from a dealer, a postal card message sent to the dealer by the father that he had sold the rings and would make it good, establishes the father\u2019s liability, irrespective of a question of the agency of the son in procuring them.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October, term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 3, 1912.\nShulman & Shulman, for plaintiff in error; E. N. Zoline, of counsel.\nJohn K. PrindvhjLE, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0394-01",
  "first_page_order": 412,
  "last_page_order": 413
}