{
  "id": 2823167,
  "name": "Thomas W. Magill, surviving partner of H. O. Stone & Co., Appellee, v. John A. Murphey, Jr., Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Magill v. Murphey",
  "decision_date": "1913-05-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,511",
  "first_page": "487",
  "last_page": "488",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "180 Ill. App. 487"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. 559",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2739653
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/92/0559-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 Ill. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3092405
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/167/0368-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2403,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08481131525428702
    },
    "sha256": "e22cfaac79a2e9ea919a1b208b44195206b908e59aa623dd38decf837d8f3ef5",
    "simhash": "1:0c0349265c50b93b",
    "word_count": 408
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:40.413930+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas W. Magill, surviving partner of H. O. Stone & Co., Appellee, v. John A. Murphey, Jr., Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant Murphey in writing authorized plaintiffs to negotiate a loan or extension of his loan of $15,000 on his property and agreed to pay plaintiffs therefor $250. Plaintiffs complied with the terms of the proposal and brought this suit to recover the compensation defendant agreed to pay. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiffs for $250 and interest at five per cent, from August 15, 1907, the date of the extension agreement. The jury returned the following verdict:\n\u201cWe the jury find the issues for the plaintiff and assess the plaintiff\u2019s damages at\n$290 dollars.\n$ 63 cents.\u201d\nThe court denied defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial, entered judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and defendant appealed.\nWe think the proposal may be regarded as an instrument in writing within the meaning of the statute relating to interest and that the court properly directed a verdict for the interest. Murray v. Doud & Co., 167 Ill. 368; Downey v. O\u2019Donnell, 92 Ill. 559.\nMurphey and Murphy are idem sonans and the same name.\nThe fact that the verdict is for the plaintiff and not for the plaintiffs is no ground for reversing the judgment, which was in favor of the plaintiffs.\nThe verdict is clearly for $290.63 and the court properly gave judgment for that sum on the verdict.\nFinding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John A. Murphey, Jr., for appellant.",
      "John T. Booz, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas W. Magill, surviving partner of H. O. Stone & Co., Appellee, v. John A. Murphey, Jr., Appellant.\nGen. No. 17,511\n1. Interest\u2014when properly included in verdict. Where defendant in writing authorized plaintiff to negotiate a certain loan and agreed to pay plaintiff therefor $250, the proposal may he regarded as an instrument in writing within the meaning of the statute relating to interest and the court may properly direct a verdict including interest.\n2. Names\u2014idem sonans. Murphey and Murphy are idem sonans and the same name.\n3. Appeals and errors\u2014mistake in verdict. That the verdict is for the \u201cplaintiff\u201d and not for the \u201cplaintiffs\u201d is no ground for reversing a judgment which is in favor of the plaintiffs.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. J. E. Owens, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 26, 1913.\nRehearing denied June 9, 1913.\nJohn A. Murphey, Jr., for appellant.\nJohn T. Booz, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0487-01",
  "first_page_order": 505,
  "last_page_order": 506
}