{
  "id": 2841076,
  "name": "Greer-Wilkinson Lumber Company, Defendant in Error, v. George A. Neeves, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Greer-Wilkinson Lumber Co. v. Neeves",
  "decision_date": "1914-01-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,726",
  "first_page": "575",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 575"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 1874,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "sha256": "91191e54f0e1a53f837b90d6860ab2dc8c18479465274cd7a17c82b9fd1e51d8",
    "simhash": "1:58f569a5616f2cda",
    "word_count": 307
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Greer-Wilkinson Lumber Company, Defendant in Error, v. George A. Neeves, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George A. Neeves, Jr. and Leland K. Neeves, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Eastman & White, for defendant in error; Ralph R. Hawxhurst, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Greer-Wilkinson Lumber Company, Defendant in Error, v. George A. Neeves, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,726.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Jr., Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1914.\nRehearing denied February 3, 1914.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nCompromise and settlement, \u00a7 5 \u2014when compromise of disputed claim sufficient consideration for a note. Where a person as a result of a compromise agreement gives his promissory note in settlement of a doubtful claim he is liable thereon and cannot urge want of consideration for the note, even though the claim could not have been legally enforced against him, where there was neither actual nor constructive fraud and the parties acted in good faith with full knowledge of all the facts.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Greer-Wilkinson Lumber Company, a corporation, against George A. Neeves on a promissory note given by defendant to plaintiff in renewal of another note for the same amount. The original note was given to plaintiff as a result of a compromise agreement in payment for materials purchased by a contractor and used by the contractor in constructing a house for defendant after defendant had disputed his liability to pay therefor, and after defendant had refused to pay the contractor on the ground that the building did not conform to specifications. The defense to the note was want of consideration. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $586.15, defendant brings error.\nGeorge A. Neeves, Jr. and Leland K. Neeves, for plaintiff in error.\nEastman & White, for defendant in error; Ralph R. Hawxhurst, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0575-01",
  "first_page_order": 599,
  "last_page_order": 600
}