{
  "id": 2855198,
  "name": "Joseph Binder, Defendant in Error, v. Mary A. Roberts, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Binder v. Roberts",
  "decision_date": "1914-05-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,603",
  "first_page": "181",
  "last_page": "182",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 181"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1995,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "sha256": "1b382086c3d937f08044bc0b011c413c1d117b111afceee92538fa915ce7b073",
    "simhash": "1:539b08b7651b98ac",
    "word_count": 324
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Binder, Defendant in Error, v. Mary A. Roberts, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles C. Spencer, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ernest C. Reniff, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Binder, Defendant in Error, v. Mary A. Roberts, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,603.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry C. Beitler, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed May 25, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in the Municipal Court by Joseph Binder against Mary A. Roberts. The original statement of claim is for an account stated for work done and materials furnished for defendant\u2019s automobiles. The amended statement of claim is based on alleged fraudulent representations made by one Shea, whereby plaintiff accepted his note for the balance due for the work done and materials furnished on said automobiles. The allegations of the statements of claim were traversed by affidavits of defense. To reverse a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Fraud, \u00a7 111 \u2014sufficiency of evidence. In an action in the Municipal Court where the original statement of claim is for an account stated for work and materials furnished for defendant\u2019s automobiles, and an amended statement of claim was based on alleged fraudulent representations made by a person who brought the machines to plaintiff\u2019s shop, whereby plaintiff accepted his note for the balance due, held that a judgment in favor of plaintiff was not sustained by any evidence in the record tending to support the allegations of either the original or amended statement of claim.\n2. Payment, \u00a7 6*\u2014when acceptance of third party's note constitutes payment. Where a person accepts a third party\u2019s promissory note payable to his order in payment of a balance claimed to be due from another, such acceptance constitutes payment.\nCharles C. Spencer, for plaintiff in error.\nErnest C. Reniff, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number. -"
  },
  "file_name": "0181-01",
  "first_page_order": 207,
  "last_page_order": 208
}