{
  "id": 2890184,
  "name": "Simon P. Gary, Plaintiff in Error, v. Charles R. Beadles, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gary v. Beadles",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,701",
  "first_page": "459",
  "last_page": "460",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 459"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2091,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "sha256": "8fc725c7ab912891bc8e2b71348d0959e62a673470efad04842116096bb8d119",
    "simhash": "1:fd3bda90a5d528bc",
    "word_count": 347
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Simon P. Gary, Plaintiff in Error, v. Charles R. Beadles, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 420 \u2014when objection below to insufficiency of affidavit of merits essential. An objection that the affidavit of merits filed by the defendant in an action for attorney\u2019s fees did not aver as grounds of defense that there had been an accord and satisfaction and that such fees had been paid, all of which was testified to by the defendant, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 883*\u2014when instructions must be set out in full. Alleged error in giving instructions will not be considered on appeal or writ of error unless all the instructions given are set out in full in the abstract.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1530*\u2014when instruction harmless. An instruction, although subject to criticism, held not prejudicially erroneous where the testimony relative to the matters therein presented stands uncontradicted.\n4. New trial, \u00a7 67*\u2014when newly-discovered evidence not ground for new trial. Newly-discovered evidence held not of such a character as to warrant the granting of a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael Lyons, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Henry W. Leman and Frank H. Culver, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Simon P. Gary, Plaintiff in Error, v. Charles R. Beadles, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 19,701.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 28, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Simon P. Gary against Charles B. Beadles, to recover three hundred dollars claimed to be due the plaintiff for professional services in defending a suit instituted in the Municipal Court against the defendant to recover real estate broker\u2019s commissions, wherein judgment was entered against the defendant for fifteen hundred dollars. To reverse a judgment on a verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff brings error.\nMichael Lyons, for plaintiff in error.\nHenry W. Leman and Frank H. Culver, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and. section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0459-01",
  "first_page_order": 483,
  "last_page_order": 484
}