{
  "id": 2832391,
  "name": "Joseph M. Laughlin, Defendant in Error, v. William M. Hopkinson, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Laughlin v. Hopkinson",
  "decision_date": "1913-11-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,251",
  "first_page": "401",
  "last_page": "401",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 Ill. App. 401"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 1506,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "sha256": "f162fb2ff33d06d2975e5f719546c6fa3cb7c35e3816c69b6d9a89929c1e1c6e",
    "simhash": "1:89f5c89700ac9488",
    "word_count": 240
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:27.806602+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph M. Laughlin, Defendant in Error, v. William M. Hopkinson, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles B. Stafford, for plaintiff in error; A. N. Waterman, Thurman, Stafford & Hume and C. B. Haffenberg, of counsel.",
      "Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph M. Laughlin, Defendant in Error, v. William M. Hopkinson, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,251.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Frauds, \u00a7 100 \u2014when evidence of other transactions, inadmissible. In an action for fraud and deceit practiced by defendant in selling a part interest in a store, evidence of sale by defendant to another held inadmissible to show fraudulent intention.\n2. Damaqes, \u00a7 153 \u2014when verdict excessive in action for fraud and deceit. In an action for damages resulting from false and fraudulent representations, a verdict for $20,000 held palpably excessive.\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1912.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 29, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Joseph M. Laughlin against William M. Hopkinson to recover damages resulting from false and fraudulent representations made to plaintiff by defendant whereby plaintiff was induced to pay defendant six thousand two hundred dollars for a one-half interest in a clothing store. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for twenty thousand dollars, defendant brings error.\nCharles B. Stafford, for plaintiff in error; A. N. Waterman, Thurman, Stafford & Hume and C. B. Haffenberg, of counsel.\nMayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number,"
  },
  "file_name": "0401-01",
  "first_page_order": 423,
  "last_page_order": 423
}