{
  "id": 2857314,
  "name": "Edward C. Hart, Defendant in Error, v. William L. Mohr, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hart v. Mohr",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,651",
  "first_page": "10",
  "last_page": "10",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 10"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 1719,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "sha256": "ec83057370ef61e96c5e10cdff728833cd3cb9d3074acac2424eca3ec91ae1fe",
    "simhash": "1:8d5524155a2b92ad",
    "word_count": 291
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward C. Hart, Defendant in Error, v. William L. Mohr, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bunge, Harbour & Chadwick, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Mather & Hutson, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward C. Hart, Defendant in Error, v. William L. Mohr, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,651.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nTrover and conversion, \u00a7 39 \u2014when evidence insufficient to establish defendant\u2019s possession. In replevin to recover a desk, where the action was later changed to trover, it appeared the desk was in the possession of a certain company, that the capital stock of such company had been sold to the defendant and was used by the officers of such company after the transfer was made, and that it was always considered a part of the company\u2019s assets and was considered so by the defendant. Held that a judgment for plaintiff could not be sustained, there having been no demand made on the company for the desk, and the evidence being insufficient to show that the desk was ever in defendant\u2019s possession.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John K. Prindiville, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed May 19, 1914.\nRehearing denied June 2, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction brought in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Edward C. Hart against William L. Mohr in replevin to recover possession of a desk. Upon failure of the bailiff to obtain the property the action was changed to trover. Plaintiff recovered a judgment for the full value of the desk, and to reverse the judgment defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nBunge, Harbour & Chadwick, for plaintiff in error.\nMather & Hutson, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same, topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0010-01",
  "first_page_order": 36,
  "last_page_order": 36
}