{
  "id": 2965612,
  "name": "Ida Mark, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Mitchell, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mark v. Mitchell",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,421",
  "first_page": "499",
  "last_page": "499",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 499"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1623,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "sha256": "cfe1b3b5ad43743f206d6f70b20c7ce45161408366639b3e30973edd39614819",
    "simhash": "1:c153ea24d20886bc",
    "word_count": 263
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ida Mark, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Mitchell, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McGoorty\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McGoorty"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cantwell & Smith, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Harry A. Fleck, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ida Mark, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Mitchell, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,421.\n(Not to be reported in fall.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Assumpsit, Action of, \u00a7 88 \u2014when exclusion of evidence of financial condition of borrower of money erroneous. In an action by a woman against a former employer for money alleged to have been loaned to him by her, held that the exclusion of evidence of the financial condition of the defendant\u2019s business, offered for the purpose of showing the improbability of the defendant having borrowed the money, was reversible error in view of the unsatisfactory character of the plaintiff\u2019s testimony.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 165*\u2014what constitute self-serving declarations. In an action for money alleged to have been loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant, a promissory note drawn by the plaintiff but not signed by the defendant, held improperly admitted in evidence, as it was but a self-serving declaration.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. New-comes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 10, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Ida Mark, plaintiff, against Robert Mitchell, defendant, for money alleged to have been loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nCantwell & Smith, for plaintiff in error.\nHarry A. Fleck, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0499-01",
  "first_page_order": 541,
  "last_page_order": 541
}