{
  "id": 2856925,
  "name": "The Quality Car Company, Defendant in Error, v. J. J. Corkill, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Quality Car Co. v. Corkill",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,459",
  "first_page": "2",
  "last_page": "3",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 2"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 1990,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39204891868213165
    },
    "sha256": "01852bb28d8ea93c37bc0a77ed8cd36ef9d78132a891f5bf70f9ec5f80e8586e",
    "simhash": "1:f376d017d10f6bba",
    "word_count": 338
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Quality Car Company, Defendant in Error, v. J. J. Corkill, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adams, Candee, Steere & Hawley, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Miller, Gorham & Wales, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Quality Car Company, Defendant in Error, v. J. J. Corkill, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,459.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 19, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in the Municipal Court of Chicago by The Quality Car Company, a corporation, against J. J. Corkill to recover a balance of $142.83 claimed to be due for work and labor performed, materials furnished and storage. The main proof was an account stated. The trial was before the court without a jury. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Account stated, \u00a7 5 \u2014evidence sufficient to establish. Evidence held sufficient to establish a stated account, where plaintiff hy its bookkeeper proved that it mailed invoices to defendant every time it did work for him, and it appeared that bills were sent to him the first of every month and that he never made a protest or objection to the bills or denied that he owed the money and the defendant admitted he received such bills and did not deny the testimony of the bookkeeper.\n2. Account stated, \u00a7 24*\u2014admissibility of boohs of account. In an action on a stated account, plaintiff\u2019s ledger held admissible in evidence to show that items of credit claimed by defendant had been credited to him in the account.\n3. Set-oef and becoupment, \u00a7 10*\u2014when claim for unliquidated damages not proper subject of set-off. In an action on an account stated, held that a claim of set-off arising from an entirely distinct and separate transaction for unliquidated damages could not he set off.\nAdams, Candee, Steere & Hawley, for plaintiff in error.\nMiller, Gorham & Wales, for defendant in error.\nSee lUinoie Notes Digest, Yols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0002-01",
  "first_page_order": 28,
  "last_page_order": 29
}