{
  "id": 2909070,
  "name": "Fitz G. H. Kreamer, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. M. Hewitt, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kreamer v. Hewitt",
  "decision_date": "1914-10-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,088",
  "first_page": "27",
  "last_page": "28",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 27"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 1882,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "sha256": "6463d7eba40408639a3b2fb17520920a10afe9a7bbc7b8f77342715941755d05",
    "simhash": "1:4357f0ec7d8d942b",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fitz G. H. Kreamer, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. M. Hewitt, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Graves\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Graves"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred H. Atwood, Frank B. Pease, Charles O. Loucks, and Vernon R. Loucks, for plaintiff in error; Geary V. Stibgen, of counsel.",
      "Walter F. Olds and Smietanka, Johnson, Molthrop & Polkey, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fitz G. H. Kreamer, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. M. Hewitt, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 19,088.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry C. Beitler, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 7, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Fitz G. H. Kreamer against C. M. Hewitt to recover for work and materials alleged to have been furnished to defendant upon his acceptance of a written offer to furnish the same. Plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim did not state whether his written proposal was accepted by an instrument in writing or by word of mouth, in person, or through an agent. Defendant in his affidavit of merits denied be made any contract with plaintiff as alleged, denied that the work and materials were furnished by him and denied he owed plaintiff the sum claimed. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nEvidence, \u00a7 304 \u2014when letter properly excluded for want of proof of identification. In an action to recover for work and materials alleged to have been furnished by plaintiff to defendant upon his acceptance of a written offer to furnish the same, a letter written by defendant to a third party offered in evidence to prove that he accepted the offer, held properly excluded for not being properly identified as defendant\u2019s letter, there being no proof offered that defendant wrote or authorized the writing of it or that he knew of its existence.\nFred H. Atwood, Frank B. Pease, Charles O. Loucks, and Vernon R. Loucks, for plaintiff in error; Geary V. Stibgen, of counsel.\nWalter F. Olds and Smietanka, Johnson, Molthrop & Polkey, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0027-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 54
}
