{
  "id": 2877066,
  "name": "Frederick Fleck, Administrator, Appellee, v. Joseph Weipert, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fleck v. Weipert",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,801",
  "first_page": "57",
  "last_page": "58",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 57"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 3294,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "sha256": "25f345dd6476695aa37cb38a3f4a2047eb08adf3dcc4b85d966b0bee319817cf",
    "simhash": "1:5b751c0450a98012",
    "word_count": 540
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frederick Fleck, Administrator, Appellee, v. Joseph Weipert, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael Koch, for appellant; Delbert A. Clithero, of counsel.",
      "Bradley, Harper & Eheim, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frederick Fleck, Administrator, Appellee, v. Joseph Weipert, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,801.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by Frederick Fleck, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Marie Weipert, deceased, against Joseph Weipert to recover the proceeds of a sale of a certain saloon business located at 628 Wells street, Chicago. The defendant was the reputed husband of said Marie Weipert, and they lived together as husband and wife for a number of years, and upon the death of the said Marie Weipert, October 7, 1912, the defendant \u201cas surviving husband of the deceased\u201d was appointed administrator of her estate. The defendant operated a saloon and restaurant at 628 Wells street, Chicago; also a saloon at Lincoln and Wright-wood avenues, Chicago. The defendant resigned as administrator of the estate of said Marie Weipert, deceased, November 27,1912, and the plaintiff, a brother of the deceased, was appointed administrator de bonis non of said estate on December 2, 1912. During the time that the defendant was acting as administrator of the said estate, he sold the business at 628 Wells street for $4,200. The case was tried before the court and a jury, and the issues were found for the plaintiff and the damages were assessed at $4,200. Judgment was entered on the finding and this appeal followed.\nMichael Koch, for appellant; Delbert A. Clithero, of counsel.\nBradley, Harper & Eheim, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Instructions, \u00a7 93 \u2014when instruction as to credibility of witnesses erroneous. An instruction which in effect authorizes the impeachment of a witness as to an immaterial matter in his testimony, in reference to which he has made different and contradicting statements in former occasions, is erroneous.\n2. Witnesses, \u00a7 275 \u2014what is effect of contradictory statements of witness. Proof of different and contradictory statements of a witness as to a material matter made on former occasions is merely evidence tending to impeach such witness, to be considered by the jury in estimating the weight of the testimony.\n3. Witnesses, \u00a7 282 \u2014when testimony of witness may be disregarded. If a jury believe that a witness has wilfully sworn falsely to a material matter, or that he has been successfully impeached, they may disregard his entire uncorroborated testimony\u2014otherwise not.\n4. Husband and wife, \u00a7 210 \u2014when instruction as to effect of separation erroneous. An instruction stating in effect that if a woman married a man in good faith and afterwards learned that he had another wife living, and they agreed to separate, such agreement was sufficient consideration to support a transfer of property from such man to the woman, is erroneous, since it was the duty of the woman on learning of the former marriage to cease living in adultery, and the agreement to separate did not extinguish any claim or right which the woman might have against the man.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0057-01",
  "first_page_order": 83,
  "last_page_order": 84
}