{
  "id": 2860900,
  "name": "Devoe & Raynolds Company, Defendant in Error, v. Patrick O'Malley, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Devoe & Raynolds Co. v. O'Malley",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,191",
  "first_page": "549",
  "last_page": "550",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 549"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2320,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "sha256": "ad2ef2dcc4958082472412f01f2e106ffddc70e883ec4e051c34215e29a428c5",
    "simhash": "1:2adbf284a00990f8",
    "word_count": 366
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Devoe & Raynolds Company, Defendant in Error, v. Patrick O\u2019Malley, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Saxes, \u00a7 329 \u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that owner of building assumed responsibility for payment for goods. In an action to recover for paints, etc., delivered at and used in decorating defendant\u2019s building, where the evidence was conflicting as to whether defendant assumed responsibility for the bill, a finding for plaintiff held supported by the evidence.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas J. O\u2019Hare, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Elbert C. Ferguson, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Devoe & Raynolds Company, Defendant in Error, v. Patrick O\u2019Malley, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,191.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 475 \u2014uihat constitutes preponderance. The question of the preponderance of the evidence does not depend solely on the number of the witnesses testifying.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 329*\u2014what evidence may be considered in determining preponderance of evidence in action against oumer of building for materials sold. In an action to recover for paints, etc., where the defense was that defendant did not order the goods, which defendant claimed were for the benefit of his lessee, the court trying the case without a jury has the right to take into consideration, in determining the preponderance of the evidence, the fact that the goods were delivered at and used in decorating defendant\u2019s building, and that when defendant received a bill for the goods he did not repudiate liability, although such facts, of themselves, might not be sufficient to warrant the inference that defendant admitted responsibility for the bill.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 12, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Devoe & Raynolds Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Patrick O\u2019Halley, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover for paints, etc., delivered at and used in decorating defendant\u2019s building. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nThomas J. O\u2019Hare, for plaintiff in error.\nElbert C. Ferguson, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV,. gnd Cumulative Quarterly, game topic Mid section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0549-01",
  "first_page_order": 573,
  "last_page_order": 574
}