{
  "id": 2849713,
  "name": "Julius London, Appellee, v. S. Jaffe, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "London v. Jaffe",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,889",
  "first_page": "249",
  "last_page": "250",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 249"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1980,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "sha256": "99e26f4bc509f7c3c850d714e5a472337c8b114460426bb6396767bd070ef525",
    "simhash": "1:faaef82498a678ec",
    "word_count": 335
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Julius London, Appellee, v. S. Jaffe, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Assignments, \u00a7 36 -\u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain finding of jury. In an action by an assignee of an account to recover the amount due thereon from the defendant to the assignor, a finding by a jury that there was no understanding between the defendant and the assignor that certain notes given by the assignor to the defendant were to be paid or canceled by the sale of certain merchandise by the assignor to the defendant, held sustained by the evidence.\n2. New trial, \u00a7 67 \u2014when newly discovered evidence ground for. To authorize a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence it must appear that the evidence has been discovered since the trial and that the party has not been guilty of negligence in not discovering and producing it on the former trial. A new trial will not be granted where such evidence is merely cumulative and not conclusive in its character.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel J. Ahdalmah, for appellant; Jacob Coheh, of counsel.",
      "Julius C. Greehbaum, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Julius London, Appellee, v. S. Jaffe, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,889.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 5, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Julius London against S. Jaffie based on a written assignment to plaintiff, as assignee of an account due from the defendant to M. Golbus, the assignor. The defense, as disclosed from defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits and as urged upon the trial, was that the assignment was not made in good faith and was without consideration between the assignor and assignee, and that at the time of the execution of the assignment there were no moneys due and owing from defendant to Golbus. From a judgment.in favor of plaintiff for $1,834.29, defendant appeals.\nSamuel J. Ahdalmah, for appellant; Jacob Coheh, of counsel.\nJulius C. Greehbaum, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0249-01",
  "first_page_order": 275,
  "last_page_order": 276
}