{
  "id": 5368927,
  "name": "Skilbeck and Brown, Appellees, v. Hans Andreasen, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Skilbeck v. Andreasen",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 5,884",
  "first_page": "368",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 368"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 1979,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "sha256": "27bda19b0ebac67b01d662e99c58945715154a90dc448965e47349e79dfc0a59",
    "simhash": "1:064f4b237c21230e",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Skilbeck and Brown, Appellees, v. Hans Andreasen, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dibell\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 472 \u2014necessity of preserving objection to questions asked of witness by court. Though section 81 of the Practice Act, as amended in 1911, J & A. \u00b6 8618, does away with the necessity for preserving an exception, it is still the law that counsel considering themselves injured by question asked of a witness by the court must object thereto and give the trial judge an opportunity to withdraw the objectionable question.\nWhitney, J., took no part in this decision.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dibell"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles H. King, for appellant.",
      "E. V. Orvis, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Skilbeck and Brown, Appellees, v. Hans Andreasen, Appellant.\nGen. No. 5,884.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Charles Whitney, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by G-erald W. Skilbeck and Evan Brown, co-partners trading as Skilbeck & Brown, against Hans Andreasen to recover a bill claimed to be owed plaintiffs for lathing done for defendant on a building. The suit was originally commenced before a justice where plaintiffs recovered a judgment for $63.83. On appeal to the Circuit Court plaintiffs had a verdict and judgment for $50. From the judgment of the Circuit Court, defendant appeals.\nCharles H. King, for appellant.\nE. V. Orvis, for appellees.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Building and construction contracts, \u00a7 97 \u2014admissibility of evidence. In an action for lathing done on a building, defendant testified that he paid a certain sum to a third person to secure other men to do part of the work not done by plaintiffs and such testimony was excluded. Held that exclusion of such testimony was proper where there was no testimony showing the hiring of such third person was necessary, the time spent by him in finding lathers or that such sum was a reasonable compensation.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0368-01",
  "first_page_order": 414,
  "last_page_order": 415
}