{
  "id": 4899033,
  "name": "Decatur and Springfield R. R. Co. v. Ervin et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Decatur & Springfield R. R. v. Ervin",
  "decision_date": "1886-01-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 33",
  "first_page": "647",
  "last_page": "647",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 Ill. App. 647"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2860429
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/112/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5315062
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/76/0067-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 100,
    "char_count": 802,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15428331922054142
    },
    "sha256": "0b8c60c79ab302314f73e25207d1f79b55829fae6873599ae0425819aa371468",
    "simhash": "1:f2938e16bd2a37d0",
    "word_count": 142
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:07.529816+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Decatur and Springfield R. R. Co. v. Ervin et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion\nPer Curiam.\nJudge below, J. W.Wilktn.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorneys, for appellant, Mr. James A. Eads; for appellee, Mr. C. C. Clark and Messrs. Nelson & Harnsserg."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "third district.\nNo. 33.\nDecatur and Springfield R. R. Co. v. Ervin et al.\nOpinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.\nThe defendants in error recovered of the plaintiff in error a sum found to be due for rebate upon certain shipments of grain. The record being brought here, the question is presented whether the contracts under which the defendant below agreed to make the rebate were valid and binding as between the parties thereto. The Supreme Court has settled the point involved adversely to the plaintiff in error : T. W. & W. R. R. Co. v. Elliott et al., 76 Ill. 67; The P. D. & E. Ry. Co. v. Cecil et al., 112 Ill. 180.\nThe judgment is therefore affirmed.\nAttorneys, for appellant, Mr. James A. Eads; for appellee, Mr. C. C. Clark and Messrs. Nelson & Harnsserg."
  },
  "file_name": "0647-01",
  "first_page_order": 645,
  "last_page_order": 645
}