{
  "id": 2893369,
  "name": "Abraham J. Liebman, Defendant in Error, v. William B. Austin, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Liebman v. Austin",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,478",
  "first_page": "235",
  "last_page": "236",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 235"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2483,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "sha256": "fe91ad13dfe1f3eee290101362ddb607d8ef38ecd22aa86abd4d18c007311cac",
    "simhash": "1:45618893579972b9",
    "word_count": 399
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Abraham J. Liebman, Defendant in Error, v. William B. Austin, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 966 \u2014when question not presented in record not considered. The question of the duty of a party to reduce damages resulting from a breach of contract will not be considered in appeal where such question is not raised in the record.\n3. Fbatjds, statute of, \u00a7 118*\u2014when must he pleaded. Statute of Frauds to be available as a defense must be pleaded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles A. Churan, for plaintiff, in error.",
      "John S. Lord, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Abraham J. Liebman, Defendant in Error, v. William B. Austin, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,478.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Mortgages, \u00a7 733 \u2014what shows contract to settle second mortgage in consideration of waiver of redemption. Where a third mortgagee acquires certain other property by purchase from the owner of the mortgaged property by a deed reciting that a portion of the purchase price of the purchased property be retained by the third mortgagee to apply on incumbrances on the mortgaged property, including incumbrance of a second mortgagee, such recital constitutes evidence sufficient to corroborate the second mortgagee\u2019s claim that the third mortgagee promised to settle the second mortgagee\u2019s incumbrance in consideration of the second mortgagee\u2019s promise to forbear from redeeming the mortgaged property after foreclosure sale.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. James C. Martin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 13, 1915.\nRehearing denied April 27, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Abraham J. Liebman, against William B. Austin for breach of contract. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nLiebman and Austin being in the position of second and third mortgagees respectively, Liebman claimed that in consideration of his forbearing to redeem the premises from a foreclosure sale Austin agreed to pay Liebman the amount of his claim. A deed was introduced in evidence conveying certain other property from the mortgagor to Austin and providing that a certain portion of the purchase price thereof should be retained by Austin to apply on incumbrances on the mortgaged property, securing Liebman\u2019s note.\nCharles A. Churan, for plaintiff, in error.\nJohn S. Lord, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0235-01",
  "first_page_order": 259,
  "last_page_order": 260
}