{
  "id": 5411890,
  "name": "Henry Weiss and Samuel S. Schwartz, Defendants in Error, v. S. A. Corn, Flaintiif in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Weiss v. Corn",
  "decision_date": "1917-01-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,275",
  "first_page": "261",
  "last_page": "262",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 261"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2072,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "76732661b16b5c112f430bcc9db51f550882886e0f33c8901b2af24648cbdcd3",
    "simhash": "1:c14cdd7d9d89e998",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Weiss and Samuel S. Schwartz, Defendants in Error, v. S. A. Corn, Flaintiif in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Taylor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Municipal Coubt op Chicago, \u00a7 29 \u2014when finding of trial court will not be disturbed. Where, in a fourth-class case under the Municipal Court Act, the evidence was conflicting and the trial judge at the conclusion of the evidence made a r\u00e9sum\u00e9 and analysis of the effect thereof and conclusion that the defendant had established his defense, held that the plaintiffs had failed to make out their alleged case by a preponderance of the evidence.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Taylor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martin L. Wilborn, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Bernard J. Brown, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Weiss and Samuel S. Schwartz, Defendants in Error, v. S. A. Corn, Flaintiif in Error.\nGen. No. 21,275.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Dismissal, nonsuit and discontinuance, \u00a7 43 \u2014lohen motion for nonsuit is too late. Where motion for a nonsuit was not made until after the trial judge had stated that he did not see how the plaintiffs could recover or what he could do but allow the defendant\u2019s motion for a finding in his favor, held that such motion for a nonsuit was an admission that the plaintiffs had been informed of the court\u2019s conclusion, and was too late.\n2. Municipal Court op Chicago, \u00a7 29 \u2014how fourth-class case must he decided on review. Under section 23 of the Municipal Court Act (J. & A. If 3335), it is the duty of the Appellate Court in a fourth-class case to decide the case upon its merits as appearing from the statement or stenographic report signed by the trial judge.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jacob H. Hopkins, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and judgment.\nOpinion filed January 17, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Henry Weiss and Samuel S. Schwartz, plaintiffs, against S. A. Corn, defendant, to recover the sum of $942.85 for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for defendant for costs upon a nonsuit, plaintiffs bring error.\nMartin L. Wilborn, for plaintiff in error.\nBernard J. Brown, for defendants in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, sanie topic and section number\u00bb"
  },
  "file_name": "0261-01",
  "first_page_order": 285,
  "last_page_order": 286
}