{
  "id": 4903322,
  "name": "Stanwood v. Pratt",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stanwood v. Pratt",
  "decision_date": "1886-07-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 115\u20142385",
  "first_page": "652",
  "last_page": "652",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 Ill. App. 652"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 71,
    "char_count": 581,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "sha256": "0281614346388ad4c74f1ed4eb6901a851d72815f44d5dfecabc5dc3e5f9da4f",
    "simhash": "1:3228f94a813af030",
    "word_count": 99
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:57.020912+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Stanwood v. Pratt."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion\nPer Curiam.\nJudge below, Joseph E. Gary. Attorneys, for appellant, Mr. C. C. Bonney and Mr. Lyman M. Paine ; for appellee, Mr. E. F. Runyan.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "No. 115\u20142385.\nStanwood v. Pratt.\nJudgment was rendered by the court below in favor of appellee and against appellant, for the value of certain shares of telephone stock. There is evidence in the record which clearly supports the finding, and from an examination of the whole evidence, this court is unable to say that it so preponderates against the finding as to justify a reversal.\nJudgment affirmed.\nOpinion filed July 21, 1886."
  },
  "file_name": "0652-02",
  "first_page_order": 648,
  "last_page_order": 648
}