{
  "id": 5353839,
  "name": "Kathryn Lonergan, Defendant in Error, v. Margaret O'Neil, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lonergan v. O'Neil",
  "decision_date": "1913-01-23",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,666",
  "first_page": "616",
  "last_page": "617",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "176 Ill. App. 616"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1819,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "sha256": "7d08a0c516d4a001b71cb1cf973fb7a45933f5ddd55939fb78b3b8b47903f9f8",
    "simhash": "1:9fcd9453219820e0",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:47:28.669055+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kathryn Lonergan, Defendant in Error, v. Margaret O\u2019Neil, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an action commenced in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Kathryn Lonergan, plaintiff, against Margaret O\u2019Neil, defendant, to recover for services rendered by plaintiff, at defendant\u2019s request, as a practical nurse and attendant for the husband of defendant, John O\u2019Neil. Plaintiff claimed that she acted as such nurse and attendant for a period of twenty-two weeks during the year 1909, and had received no compensation for her services. The jury returned a verdict in h\u00e9r favor and assessed her damages at the sum of $175, upon which verdict the court, on May 20, 1911, entered judgment.\nIt is urged by counsel for defendant that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. No useful purpose would be served in here setting forth and commenting upon the testimony of the many witnesses given at the trial. Suffice it to say that, after careful consideration of the same, we are of the opinion that the verdict is supported by the evidence, and that substantial justice has been done.\nIt is contended that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence on behalf of plaintiff and in excluding certain evidence offered by defendant. In our opinion the contentions are without merit.\nThe judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John J. Swenie, for plaintiff in error; M. R. Harris, of counsel.",
      "Joseph E. Ryan, for defendant in error; Quin O\u2019Brien, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kathryn Lonergan, Defendant in Error, v. Margaret O\u2019Neil, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,666.\nAction for services rendered, held, verdict supported by the evidence.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Cottrell, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 23, 1913.\nJohn J. Swenie, for plaintiff in error; M. R. Harris, of counsel.\nJoseph E. Ryan, for defendant in error; Quin O\u2019Brien, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0616-01",
  "first_page_order": 646,
  "last_page_order": 647
}