{
  "id": 2871545,
  "name": "Philip Karcher, Appellant, v. Dudley A. Tyng & Company et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Karcher v. Dudley A. Tyng & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,887",
  "first_page": "62",
  "last_page": "63",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 62"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 1831,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "d11457cddf88930ba58621f7a2409be49e0b7f655b44bbbb9ccdd44f59b0001e",
    "simhash": "1:d8bdb9265c2e0494",
    "word_count": 292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Philip Karcher, Appellant, v. Dudley A. Tyng & Company et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nTrial, \u00a7 195 \u2014when peremptory instruction erroneous. A peremptory instruction should not be given when there is evidence introduced by the plaintiff tending to prove the material allegations of the declaration.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred W. Reinhardt, for appellant.",
      "Charles A. Nowak and W. R. Hauze, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Philip Karcher, Appellant, v. Dudley A. Tyng & Company et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 20,887.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Adelor J. Petit, 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.\nAction on the case to recover damages for alleged fraud and deceit by Philip Karcher against Dudley A. Tyng & Company, a corporation, C. W. George and William C. Jacklin. The declaration consisted of two counts. The first count, in substance, charged the defendants with falsely, fraudulently and knowingly making certain false and fraudulent representations to the plaintiff as to the condition of the La Touriste Manufacturing Company; that the plaintiff relied upon such representations and as a result thereof suffered a loss. The second count was substantially the same as the first, save that it also charged that the defendants entered into a wilful and malicious conspiracy, agreement and undertaking to cheat and defraud the plaintiff. To the declaration, all the defendants filed pleas of the general issue.\nThe case was tried before the court and a jury, and when the plaintiff rested, the trial court, of his own motion, directed a verdict for the defendants. This appeal followed.\nFred W. Reinhardt, for appellant.\nCharles A. Nowak and W. R. Hauze, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0062-01",
  "first_page_order": 88,
  "last_page_order": 89
}