{
  "id": 2964757,
  "name": "Vail Crosier, Appellee, v. Arthur Crosier, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crosier v. Crosier",
  "decision_date": "1916-06-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "406",
  "last_page": "407",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 406"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2336,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.884805146940625e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41881302732321457
    },
    "sha256": "4a8ad0f5efe068f917867c0481c073f9df32fb40aa6f94821b9665b399165161",
    "simhash": "1:197de8a68801a791",
    "word_count": 391
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Vail Crosier, Appellee, v. Arthur Crosier, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice.Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice.Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. O. Willard, for appellant.",
      "D. L. Mourning and J. M. Boring, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Vail Crosier, Appellee, v. Arthur Crosier, Appellant.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Schuyler county; the Hon. Harry Higbee, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 10, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in assumpsit by Vail Crosier, plaintiff, against Arthur Crosier, defendant, on a contract alleged to have been signed by the parties. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Contracts, \u00a7 389 \u2014when existence of question for jury. In an action on a contract, copies of which, after being signed by the parties, were handed to the plaintiff and defendant by the attorney who drew it, held that the question whether it was intended by the parties that the contract should take effect on such delivery was for the jury.\n2. Contracts, \u00a7 372*\u2014when burden of proving execution of is on plaintiff. Where, in an action on a contract, the defendant filed a verified general issue, held that the burden of proving the execution of the instrument by a preponderance of evidence was on the plaintiff.\n3. Contracts\u2014what constitutes execution of. The execution of an instrument includes the signing and delivery of it with the intention that it shall take effect.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1247*\u2014when remarks of counsel may not be complained of. Counsel may not complain of remarks to the jury by opposing counsel' which are provoked by his own act and based upon evidence introduced by him, though they have no relation to the matters in issue.\n5. Contracts, \u00a7 393*\u2014when instruction in action on contract not misleading. In an action on a contract, an instruction that the plaintiff could recover if the jury believed from a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff and defendant entered into the contract sued upon, etc., held not misleading where other instructions informed the jury that, to be binding, the contract must have been signed and delivered with the intent of the parties that it should take effect.\nB. O. Willard, for appellant.\nD. L. Mourning and J. M. Boring, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0406-01",
  "first_page_order": 448,
  "last_page_order": 449
}