{
  "id": 5383468,
  "name": "James Holec and Frank Holec, trading as Holec Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Kate Beranek, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holec v. Beranek",
  "decision_date": "1915-01-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,529",
  "first_page": "116",
  "last_page": "116",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 116"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1610,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "sha256": "83fe21d03c9f8242f2454465c4cf214ff0bb47ac67eb8be40768a1d6fcc8bef2",
    "simhash": "1:4873a75d048f8b8f",
    "word_count": 271
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Holec and Frank Holec, trading as Holec Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Kate Beranek, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles J. Michal, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "F. J. Karasek, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Holec and Frank Holec, trading as Holec Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Kate Beranek, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 19,529.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nAssumpsit, action op, \u00a7 93 \u2014when person entitled to recovery for labor performed. In an action for labor and material in erecting mason work for a building, held that recovery should have been allowed for extra work and for a portion of a balance due on the contract which was substantially performed, and a finding and judgment in favor of the defendant was contrary to the evidence.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 5, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by James Holec and Frank Holec, trading as Holec Brothers, against Kate Beranek to recover $486.87. The action was on a written contract wherein the plaintiffs, for $1,070, agreed to furnish labor and material and to erect mason work for a certain building, the plans being furnished by architects employed by the defendant. The plaintiff\u2019s claim was for $300, being a balance due on the contract, and $190.03 for extra work. The case was tried before the court without a jury and the issues were found in favor of the defendant, whereupon the plaintiffs brought error.\nCharles J. Michal, for plaintiffs in error.\nF. J. Karasek, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0116-01",
  "first_page_order": 160,
  "last_page_order": 160
}