{
  "id": 2972140,
  "name": "W. Graczykowski, trading as Division Street Iron Works, Defendant in Error, v. Wanda Wysocki, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Graczykowski v. Wysocki",
  "decision_date": "1916-05-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,113",
  "first_page": "442",
  "last_page": "443",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 442"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2194,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "sha256": "e3657cfbc7ce17c4473315c68fba4ca5975ab5383c23a7b22779d2a5022e07f0",
    "simhash": "1:fbe7c700090950ac",
    "word_count": 352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:30.955611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. Graczykowski, trading as Division Street Iron Works, Defendant in Error, v. Wanda Wysocki, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Caswell & Healy, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Wiley & Mack, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. Graczykowski, trading as Division Street Iron Works, Defendant in Error, v. Wanda Wysocki, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,113.\n(Not to The reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 12, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by W. Graczykowski, trading as Division Street Iron Works, plaintiff, against Wanda Wysocki, defendant, for labor and material furnished. To reverse a judgment against her, the defendant sued out a writ of error.\nThe plaintiff testified that the work and labor were furnished under a contract with the defendant, by which she agreed to pay him eighty-five dollars for the work and materials. He was corroborated by a witness who testified that he was present when the agreement was made. This testimony was directly contradicted by the defendant. Defendant claimed that plaintiff did not establish his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and that defendant\u2019s testimony was supported by the fact that she had made a general contract including the iron work in question prior to the alleged agreement upon which the suit was brought. Plaintiff\u2019s case did not rest upon his statement alone, but was corroborated. Defendant offered evidence to show that the work and labor were worth much less than the alleged contract price.\nCaswell & Healy, for plaintiff in error.\nWiley & Mack, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 475 \u2014what constitutes preponderance. A finding based on corroborated testimony of one party will not be reversed as not supported by preponderance of the evidence where contradicted by uncorroborated testimony of the other party.\n2. Building and constbuction contbacts, \u00a7 98*\u2014when evidence as to actual value of labor and materials furnished immaterial. In action on special contract for labor and material furnished for an agreed amount, evidence of what such labor and material were actually worth is immaterial.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0442-01",
  "first_page_order": 464,
  "last_page_order": 465
}