{
  "id": 2908219,
  "name": "Thomas J. Healey, Defendant in Error, v. H. Stern, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Healey v. Stern",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,172",
  "first_page": "628",
  "last_page": "629",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 628"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 1744,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "e7b8f6860a58d9fa6c1d9b5df002cfbb1ae9d0c54eb8963314e02a2804f0c528",
    "simhash": "1:477f4019d18ea1fc",
    "word_count": 305
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas J. Healey, Defendant in Error, v. H. Stern, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph W. Schulman, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Benjamin B. Morris, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas J. Healey, Defendant in Error, v. H. Stern, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,172.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Rooney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 30, 1914.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 578 \u2014necessity of exception to entry of judgment. Decisions of the Supreme Court that the question of the weight of the evidence cannot he considered in the Appellate Court where the ease was tried without a jury and no exception was taken to the entry of the judgment, although the entry of such judgment was resisted and a motion to vacate it made immediately thereafter, referred to as hardly applicable to cases brought after the amendment of May 31, 1911, to section 81 of the Practice Act (J. & A. \u00b6 8618,) but the question not decided.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 329 \u2014sufficiency of evidence. In an action to recover for goods sold, where practically the only issue was whether the sale was made according to the weights at the place from where they were shipped or according to the weights at the place to which they were shipped, a finding in favor of plaintiff held sustained by the evidence.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Thomas J. Healey against H. Stern in the Municipal Court of Chicago to recover a sum claimed to be due for scrap iron sold to defendant. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $249.56, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nJoseph W. Schulman, for plaintiff in error.\nBenjamin B. Morris, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0628-01",
  "first_page_order": 654,
  "last_page_order": 655
}