{
  "id": 2975630,
  "name": "Joseph A. Kurrus Livery & Undertaking Company, Appellant, v. Fannie Crossett, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Joseph A. Kurrus Livery & Undertaking Co. v. Crossett",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "8",
  "last_page": "9",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 8"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2179,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.594,
    "sha256": "e1f300776c23388b1db01af9cd87e63f17a78d281d17b632145cc6702666e8dd",
    "simhash": "1:0e1d9a157e67a63c",
    "word_count": 359
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:30.955611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph A. Kurrus Livery & Undertaking Company, Appellant, v. Fannie Crossett, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1778 -\u2014when verdict not reversed on ground of insufficiency of evidence. It is not ground of reversal that the jury believed the testimony of one side rather than another, although the number of witnesses who testified for the party against whom the jury found was greater than the number testifying for the other side.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. C. Smith, for appellant; C. W. Wiedemann, of counsel.",
      "Alexander Flannigen, for appellee; Edward C. Zullet, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph A. Kurrus Livery & Undertaking Company, Appellant, v. Fannie Crossett, Appellee.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 476 \u2014when right to recover does not depend upon number of witnesses. The fact that a greater number of witnesses testify for a plaintiff does not necessarily determine his right to recover in the action.\n2. Witnesses, \u00a7 253*\u2014when fury judges of weight and credibility of testimony. The jury, under proper instructions, are the proper judges of the weight and credence to be given to the testimony of the witnesses, as they see them on the stand and hear them testify.\n3. Assumpsit, action oe, \u00a7 89*\u2014when evidence sufficient to support verdict for defendant. In an action- to recover a balance on a bill for undertaker\u2019s services, and where the evidence was eonfiicting as to whether defendant promised to pay the bill, as plaintiff' alleged, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a verdict for defendant.\nAppeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. Robert H. Flannigan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 17, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Joseph A. Kurrus Livery & Undertaking Company, plaintiff, against Fannie Crossett, defendant, in the City Court of East St. Louis, to recover a balance due on a bill for undertaking services. From a judgment against plaintiff for costs, plaintiff appeals.\nF. C. Smith, for appellant; C. W. Wiedemann, of counsel.\nAlexander Flannigen, for appellee; Edward C. Zullet, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topip and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0008-01",
  "first_page_order": 30,
  "last_page_order": 31
}