{
  "id": 2908548,
  "name": "Mandel Brothers, Defendant In Error, v. Charles J. Ringstrom, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mandel Bros. v. Ringstrom",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,178",
  "first_page": "564",
  "last_page": "565",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 564"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1523,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.203483792463421e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4761872217260543
    },
    "sha256": "666ad1d347431cd570e8d3537fee0922ad41089f15b7bef6ea2de8a8f2c4e9d5",
    "simhash": "1:a3758f317b1971e9",
    "word_count": 260
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mandel Brothers, Defendant In Error, v. Charles J. Ringstrom, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chytraus, Healy & Frost and Edwin White Moore, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ringer, Wilhartz & Louer, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mandel Brothers, Defendant In Error, v. Charles J. Ringstrom, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,178.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1918.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 25, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by Mandel Brothers against Charles J. Ringstrom to recover the price of certain goods sold by plaintiff to the wife of the defendant. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment against defendant for $106.71, and he brought error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Husband and wife, \u00a7 8 \u2014what is nature of liability for family expenses. Section 15 of the Act relating to husband and wife, J. & A. \u00b6 6152, as to family expenses, is in derogation of the common law and enlarges the liability of husband and wife, either jointly or severally, for family expenses, and such liability is not dependent upon an authorization by the party sought to be held liable.\n2. Husband and wife, \u00a7 8 -\u2014what is meaning of term \u201cexpenses of the family.\" The term \u201cexpenses of the family\u201d as employed in section 15 of the Act relating to husband and wife, J. & A. \u00b6 6152, is not synonymous with \u201cnecessaries.\u201d\nChytraus, Healy & Frost and Edwin White Moore, for plaintiff in error.\nRinger, Wilhartz & Louer, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0564-01",
  "first_page_order": 590,
  "last_page_order": 591
}
