{
  "id": 2828765,
  "name": "Henry Smith, Defendant in Error, v. Henry H. Roberts, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Roberts",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,423",
  "first_page": "227",
  "last_page": "228",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 227"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 140,
    "char_count": 1498,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "sha256": "4a3a3353e0739871ebec60b11606217af481aee27fb19e3efe262af5c233d4d6",
    "simhash": "1:b933a125d08f689c",
    "word_count": 253
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Smith, Defendant in Error, v. Henry H. Roberts, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the ' court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Leahy, for plaintiffs in error; Albert O. Olson, of counsel.",
      "I. M. Jordon and Thomas Bentham, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Smith, Defendant in Error, v. Henry H. Roberts, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,423.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Arthur W. Deselm, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 13, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Henry Smith against Henry H. Roberts to recover on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff for $512.33 and costs, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 56 \u2014what constitutes failure of consideration. The consideration for a note given by one partner for his copartner\u2019s interest in the partnership does not fail because the payee did not turn over the evidence of certain contracts as assets.\n2. Bills and notes, \u00a7 406*\u2014proof of right to set-off. In an action on a promissory note given by one partner for the interest of his copartner in order for defendant to avail of a set-off on account of plaintiff\u2019s failure to turn over certain written contracts as assets in accordance with the agreement for dissolution, he must prove the existence and nondelivery of such contracts, the undertaking to deliver same, the default in that undertaking and the resultant damages.\nJames J. Leahy, for plaintiffs in error; Albert O. Olson, of counsel.\nI. M. Jordon and Thomas Bentham, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0227-01",
  "first_page_order": 251,
  "last_page_order": 252
}