{
  "id": 2908577,
  "name": "Morris Goldstein, Defendant in Error, v. Israel Muller, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goldstein v. Muller",
  "decision_date": "1914-10-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,313",
  "first_page": "145",
  "last_page": "146",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 145"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 149,
    "char_count": 1827,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3226076114862295
    },
    "sha256": "1054517c6434d5021250414e932064565dbcf306bc0d0e755a1ec9784167f495",
    "simhash": "1:6bff451535cfa38d",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Morris Goldstein, Defendant in Error, v. Israel Muller, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blum & Blum, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Kaplan & Kaplan, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Morris Goldstein, Defendant in Error, v. Israel Muller, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,313.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rufus P. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 13, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Morris Goldstein against Israel Muller to recover $259. A part of said sum was alleged to be due plaintiff as an overpayment on a contract for work and materials furnished by defendant; another part was claimed to be a balance due for carpenter work done by plaintiff for defendant under another contract; and the balance was claimed to be due for other work and materials furnished to defendant by plaintiff. Defendant claimed he was not liable for anything set forth in plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim, and filed a counterclaim for the amount of $300. The cause was tried by the court without a jury and plaintiff had judgment for $188. To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nBlum & Blum, for plaintiff in error.\nKaplan & Kaplan, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1488*\u2014when admission of incompetent evidence not cause for reversal. In a case tried by the court without a jury, the admission of incompetent evidence is not sufficient cause for reversal, since the court will be presumed to have formed his conclusion upon the competent evidence only.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 476*\u2014determination of preponderance. In determining the preponderance of the evidence, there is no hard and fast rule which forbids a trial court from believing one witness rather than two others that contradict him; it all depends on the circumstances, the witnesses and the nature of the testimony."
  },
  "file_name": "0145-01",
  "first_page_order": 171,
  "last_page_order": 172
}
