{
  "id": 2870366,
  "name": "William T. Wright, Plaintiff in Error, v. John L. Rodgers and Mrs. John L. Rodgers, Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. Rodgers",
  "decision_date": "1915-12-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,146",
  "first_page": "379",
  "last_page": "380",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 379"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 108,
    "char_count": 1230,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "deb2454a48f8f2a1c32ecedc2fe7f0e8443b004d2c079b364f587fe3f44d40ec",
    "simhash": "1:67db8bb7f18b30b8",
    "word_count": 201
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William T. Wright, Plaintiff in Error, v. John L. Rodgers and Mrs. John L. Rodgers, Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martin & Martin, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Julius Goldzier and Adolph S. Froehlich, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William T. Wright, Plaintiff in Error, v. John L. Rodgers and Mrs. John L. Rodgers, Defendants in Error.\nGen. No. 21,146.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John K. Prindiville, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 6, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of replevin by William T. Wright, plaintiff, against John L. Rodgers and Mr.s. John L. Rodgers, defendants, to recover possession of a dog. To reverse a judgment for defendant, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.\nMartin & Martin, for plaintiff in error.\nJulius Goldzier and Adolph S. Froehlich, for defendants in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nReplevin, \u00a7164 \u2014when judgment sustained. In an action of replevin to recover possession of a dog, where the evidence was conflicting as to its identity, but the trial court had opportunity to verify the testimony of witnesses by examination and observation of the dog, which was produced in the trial court, held to sustain a judgment for the defendant.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0379-01",
  "first_page_order": 405,
  "last_page_order": 406
}