{
  "id": 2892185,
  "name": "Walter R. Kirk, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. Meinshausen, trading as German-American Oil Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kirk v. Meinshausen",
  "decision_date": "1915-05-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,719",
  "first_page": "522",
  "last_page": "523",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 522"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 1905,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "sha256": "8fbb4a714598acc1f43e288d386e3b025bd11b395c9588c12db203beb7db997b",
    "simhash": "1:d5564910128f80bc",
    "word_count": 317
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Walter R. Kirk, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. Meinshausen, trading as German-American Oil Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Culver, Andrews, King & Cook, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Eugene M. Bumphrey, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Walter R. Kirk, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. Meinshausen, trading as German-American Oil Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,719.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. LaBuy, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 11, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\n3 Action by Walter B. Kirk, plaintiff, against H. Meinshausen, trading as German-American Oil Company, defendant, to recover a balance of $150.60 as commissions claimed to be due him as broker for negotiating the sales of certain merchandise.\nThe evidence as to the terms of the contracts under which the sales were negotiated and of the terms of the agreement between the parties was conflicting. There was also a conflict as to whether or not a check for commissions given by defendant to plaintiff\u2019s order had written on it the words \u201cpayment in full\u201d and \u201cpayment in full up to date\u201d before or after plaintiff received and indorsed it.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nAppeal and error, \u00a7 1411 \u2014when judgment not disturbed where evidence conflicting. Where the evidence is conflicting the Appellate Court will not disturb the judgment, where the case is brought up on the question of the weight of the evidence, unless it can say that the finding of the lower court on the verdict of the jury is njanifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nTo reverse a judgment for defendant, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error, the only question presented on the record being whether the finding and judgment of the trial court are manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nCulver, Andrews, King & Cook, for plaintiff in error.\nEugene M. Bumphrey, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to .XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0522-01",
  "first_page_order": 546,
  "last_page_order": 547
}