{
  "id": 865115,
  "name": "Sarah C. Lieb v. Abraham Lichtenstein",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lieb v. Lichtenstein",
  "decision_date": "1886-03-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 19-2287",
  "first_page": "647",
  "last_page": "648",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 Ill. App. 647"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 110,
    "char_count": 1085,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "sha256": "96cf47732c8b09bf67ccccf4e30819ce3acf8e5550835e8ab445ed9e43c815bd",
    "simhash": "1:1eb26ac3e2cedaa9",
    "word_count": 187
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:19.454599+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sarah C. Lieb v. Abraham Lichtenstein."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion by Bailey P. J.\nOpinion filed March 31, 1886.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorneys, for plaintiff in error, Messrs. Wilson & Zook;",
      "for defendant in error, Mr. D. M. Ktbtoit and Mr. F. M. Chablton."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "No. 19\u20142287.\nSarah C. Lieb v. Abraham Lichtenstein.\nAn action on two promissory notes executed in the State of Indiana by a husband and wife. The plaintiff originally brought suit against the husband and wife, but dismissed as to the husband. The plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment against the wife for the amount appearing to be due on said notes. The principal controversy was upon the question whether the stock of goods 'for which the notes were given was purchased by the wife as her separate personal estate, and to be employed by her in carrying on her separate trade and business, or- whether the sale was really and in fact to her husband. On this question the evidence was conflicting. The jury have given credence to the plaintiff\u2019s witnesses, and the court can not say that their verdict is not sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.\nJudge below, Sidney Smith.\nAttorneys, for plaintiff in error, Messrs. Wilson & Zook;\nfor defendant in error, Mr. D. M. Ktbtoit and Mr. F. M. Chablton."
  },
  "file_name": "0647-01",
  "first_page_order": 643,
  "last_page_order": 644
}