{
  "id": 2856634,
  "name": "Anna J. S. Harmon, Appellee, v. A. P. Callahan, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harmon v. Callahan",
  "decision_date": "1914-06-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,293",
  "first_page": "312",
  "last_page": "313",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 312"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 3024,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2936976248422205
    },
    "sha256": "e3c79ffbbc6ef4d2a9bab5ae88280e031d41905d20f0117f77f19f6c181ee3ff",
    "simhash": "1:3b23a593b43d81c8",
    "word_count": 521
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Anna J. S. Harmon, Appellee, v. A. P. Callahan, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and erbob, \u00a7 523 \u2014when division of oral instructions for purpose of criticism improper. Treating each paragraph of an oral charge as a distinct and separate instruction for the purpose of criticism and objection is unwarranted where the instructions are given as a continuous and connected charge to the jury.\n2. Guaranty, \u00a7 37*\u2014when sentence in instruction not misleading. A sentence in an instruction stating that \u201cthe burden of proof is on the defendant, to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not liable,\u201d held not misleading when read in connection with other sentences showing that the meaning intended to be conveyed was that the burden of proof was upon defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discharged from liability upon his guaranty in the manner charged in his affidavit of merits.\n3. Instructions, \u00a7 85*\u2014when use of words \u201cburden of proof\u2019 not improper. A sentence in an instruction stating that \u201cthe burden of proof is on the defendant, to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not liable,\u201d held not to use the words \u201cburden of proof\u201d in an improper sense.\n4. Municipal Court oe Chicago, \u00a7 28*\u2014when error of court in putting question to witness not saved for review. Error of a judge of the Municipal Court in putting a question to a witness is not saved for review where the abstract does not show that any objection was made to the question at the time, nor show that any motion was made to strike out the answer.\n5. Municipal Court oe Chicago, \u00a7 28*\u2014saving questions for review. While formal exceptions are unnecessary in trials in the Municipal Court, yet it must appear that a ruling was \u201cmade against the objection of the party complaining thereof,\u201d before the ruling can be assailed on review.\n6. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1474*\u2014when error in admission of opinions harmless. Error in permitting witnesses to state their opinion as to certain facts, held harmless where such facts were fully shown by other evidence.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harvey Strickler, for appellant.",
      "Wells M. Cook, for app\u00e9llee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Anna J. S. Harmon, Appellee, v. A. P. Callahan, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,293.\n(Not to he reported in full:)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. David Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 15, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Anna J. S. Harmon against A. P. Callahan to recover rent on premises vacated by the lessee before the expiration of the lease. The suit is on an instrument in writing executed by the defendant guarantying the payment of the rent and all the covenants of the lessee, Mrs. Mary Foley, who leased the premises for three years from May 1,1910, and occupied the premises until March, 1911. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nHarvey Strickler, for appellant.\nWells M. Cook, for app\u00e9llee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0312-01",
  "first_page_order": 338,
  "last_page_order": 339
}