{
  "id": 5384679,
  "name": "Charles H. Mason, Defendant in Error, v. Erik L. Krag and A. L. Thompson, Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mason v. Krag",
  "decision_date": "1914-12-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,207",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "2",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1650,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "sha256": "3085b802869c73669601b34ea6b10f13fdc2a69f2998783f240c30811f4dde60",
    "simhash": "1:d173e855901df29c",
    "word_count": 295
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles H. Mason, Defendant in Error, v. Erik L. Krag and A. L. Thompson, Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Duncan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Duncan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John J. Lupe, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Charles Lane, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles H. Mason, Defendant in Error, v. Erik L. Krag and A. L. Thompson, Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 19,207.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Rafferty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 31, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Charles H. Mason against Erik L. Krag and A. L. Thompson to recover a sum claimed to be due on a promissory note executed by defendant to plaintiff, dated August 17, 1910, and payable to the order of plaintiff October 1, 1910, with six per cent, interest after maturity. A jury trial was waived and the court found for plaintiff in the sum of $112.25. To reverse a judgment entered on the finding, defendants prosecute a writ of error.\nJohn J. Lupe, for plaintiffs in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebrob, \u00a7 1414 \u2014when finding of trial court will not. he disturbed. Where no propositions of law were submitted, the findings of the court on the issues of fact are binding upon the Appellate Court the same as a verdict of a jury, when.not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\n2. Usury, \u00a7 81*\u2014when cannot he urged on review. Error of court in allowing usurious interest in a suit on a promissory note, cannot be urged on review where the record does not show the defense of usury was insisted upon by a plea, or a notice or claim of such defense in the trial court\nCharles Lane, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same .topic and section number,"
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 45,
  "last_page_order": 46
}