{
  "id": 5377898,
  "name": "World Publishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Harry R. Fisher, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "World Publishing Co. v. Fisher",
  "decision_date": "1916-02-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,154",
  "first_page": "641",
  "last_page": "642",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 641"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2965,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.581,
    "sha256": "1be121cc4d01c4da409c3a5a129b890367593b84bc6d29b9ddc88e1bf5c07729",
    "simhash": "1:e9790b24b08fd19a",
    "word_count": 500
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "World Publishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Harry R. Fisher, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 594 \u2014when motion for new trial preserves no question for review. In an action tried without a jury, a motion for a new trial preserves no question for review.\n4. Assumpsit, action of, \u00a7 41 \u2014when money voluntarily paid not recoverable. Money voluntarily paid with full knowledge of all the facts and without fraud, duress or extortion cannot be recovered back although paid under a mistake of law.\n5. Pleading, \u00a7 117 \u2014when offering evidence of set-off constitutes admission of terms of contract. In an action to recover on a written contract, where defendant pleads set-off, the act of defendant in offering evidence tending to prove his set-off involves a recognition of the terms of the contract.\n6. Appeal and error, \u00a7 578 \u2014when lack of exception to judgment does not prevent consideration of sufficiency of evidence. The absence of an exception to a judgment, in a trial without a jury, does not preclude consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain it.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. H. Craig, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John A. McKeown, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "World Publishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Harry R. Fisher, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,154.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1691 \u2014when defendant by offering evidence accepts ruling that burden of proof is upon him to establish set-off. In an action to recover on a contract, where defendant pleads set-off, a ruling that under the pleadings in the case and the court rules applicable thereto plaintiff\u2019s claim was admitted, and that the affirmative of the issue was with defendant on his set-off, is accepted by defendant by offering evidence to prove the set-off.\n'2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 461 \u2014when question whether finding against weight of evidence and law not preserved for review. In an action to recover on a written contract, the question that the finding in a case tried without a jury is against the law is not preserved for review where no objection is pointed out, no motion made, the denial of which would preserve a question for review, and no propositions of law submitted calling for a construction of the contract or any other holding, there being in such case no ruling of the trial court on which to predicate error.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert H. Scott, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 1, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the World Publishing Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Harry B. Fisher, defendant, to recover on a contract for advertising. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $537.07, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nL. H. Craig, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn A. McKeown, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same tonic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0641-01",
  "first_page_order": 663,
  "last_page_order": 664
}