{
  "id": 2862313,
  "name": "Maurice Spitzer, Defendant in Error, v. Evelyn Meyer, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Spitzer v. Meyer",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,237",
  "first_page": "550",
  "last_page": "551",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 550"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 149,
    "char_count": 1598,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "sha256": "c33ecc8a79270d766948bb0708dbf158b1fd36df16679784f7533be0b5fec37b",
    "simhash": "1:c956ef97012b70dc",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Maurice Spitzer, Defendant in Error, v. Evelyn Meyer, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Witnesses, \u00a7 33 \u2014when husband competent witness for wife. The husband of a married woman is a competent witness in her behalf under section 5 of the Evidence Act (J. & A. If 5522), in a suit against the wife to recover for architect\u2019s services.\n2. Tbial, \u00a7 68*\u2014when denial to counsel of right to make full offer of what mil be proved by witness reversible error. It is reversible error to deny to counsel the right to make fully his offer of what he intends to prove by a witness whose testimony the court has intimated an intention to exclude, although the other side objects that the offer was merely to prove what another witness had already testified to.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error; Julius Moses and Sigmund W. David, of counsel.",
      "Rieger & Rieger, for defendant in error; Franklin S. Catlin and Louis Rieger, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Maurice Spitzer, Defendant in Error, v. Evelyn Meyer, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,237.\n(Not to foe reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Mahoney, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 12, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Maurice Spitzer, plaintiff, against Evelyn Meyer, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover for architect\u2019s services. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nMoses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error; Julius Moses and Sigmund W. David, of counsel.\nRieger & Rieger, for defendant in error; Franklin S. Catlin and Louis Rieger, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0550-01",
  "first_page_order": 574,
  "last_page_order": 575
}