{
  "id": 2827010,
  "name": "National Steam Heating Company, Appellee, v. William C. Moulton, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "National Steam Heating Co. v. Moulton",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,886",
  "first_page": "483",
  "last_page": "484",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 483"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1660,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "sha256": "0f5a7ea7e2990f6139818bff2aa1e25d5b333ea2df75aa1d3471b4e4804799fa",
    "simhash": "1:c6e30044100fa99a",
    "word_count": 275
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "National Steam Heating Company, Appellee, v. William C. Moulton, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Duncan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Duncan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lewis, Folsom & Streeter, for appellant.",
      "Thomas J. O\u2019Hare, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "National Steam Heating Company, Appellee, v. William C. Moulton, Appellant.\nGen. No. 17,886.\n(Not to toe reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon Charles E. Jennings, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 15, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction on contract toy National Steam Heating Company, a corporation, against William C. Moulton. From a judgment for plaintiff for $588.90, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 223 \u2014when hearsay evidence is not admissible. In an action for the recovery of a balance due for installing heating apparatus, where there was no evidence that plaintiff had damaged a boiler, or that such boiler was in fact damaged, held that a certain letter concerning the damage was not admissible in evidence, being merely hearsay and being the statement of third parties in their own interest.\n2. Instructions, \u00a7 62*\u2014what facts may be assumed. In an action for a balance due upon a contract for installing heating apparatus, held that the giving of an instruction which assumed that delay of the plaintiff in completing the work was caused by the defendant, or those working for him, was not prejudicial error even if not based on the evidence, since the plaintiff was entitled to recover, the defendant did not prove any defense either by way of set-off or recoupment and there was no damage due to delay.\nLewis, Folsom & Streeter, for appellant.\nThomas J. O\u2019Hare, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0483-01",
  "first_page_order": 507,
  "last_page_order": 508
}