{
  "id": 5411810,
  "name": "Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Mrs. H. M. Newbold, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Co. v. Newbold",
  "decision_date": "1917-01-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,702",
  "first_page": "234",
  "last_page": "234",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 234"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 129,
    "char_count": 1358,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "sha256": "41d90822bf9b462786d32872caa261d772db8c814f0e7e5d8616a7fd4caf3b8d",
    "simhash": "1:49734437902f307c",
    "word_count": 232
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Mrs. H. M. Newbold, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Timothy J. Fell, for plaintiff in error; Hermann P, Haase, of counsel.",
      "James J. Kelly, for defendant in error; John A. Burke, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Mrs. H. M. Newbold, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,702.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nSales, \u00a7 325 \u2014when burden of proof is on seller to prove price at which goods are sold. While the burden of proving payment is on the defendant where he admits the receipt of goods and the price claimed by plaintiff and interposes a defense that payment has been made, yet where the price to be paid for the goods is in dispute, the burden of proving the price at which the goods were sold is upon the plaintiff.\nError to the Municipal Court Of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 17, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Mrs. H. M. Newbold, defendant, to recover for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiff for the amount of its claim, $558, defendant brings error.\nTimothy J. Fell, for plaintiff in error; Hermann P, Haase, of counsel.\nJames J. Kelly, for defendant in error; John A. Burke, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0234-01",
  "first_page_order": 258,
  "last_page_order": 258
}