{
  "id": 5409496,
  "name": "A. L. St. George, Appellant, v. James A. Printy, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "St. George v. Printy",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,530",
  "first_page": "304",
  "last_page": "304",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 304"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 138,
    "char_count": 1510,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "sha256": "8bcbb660c7204558623855d4519708d658281b8a7070e3135f8271a2e71a65eb",
    "simhash": "1:2a9186a5c00e96bc",
    "word_count": 263
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. L. St. George, Appellant, v. James A. Printy, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. J. St. George, for appellant.",
      "Charles Daniels and Michael P. Morrissey, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. L. St. George, Appellant, v. James A. Printy, Appellee.\nGen. No. 22,530.\n(Not to Tbe reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Witnesses, \u00a7 41 \u2014when husband is competent witness in action by wife. The husband of a party to an action is a competent witness for the wife in such action where the separate property of the wife is involved or where he acted as her agent.\n2. Husband and wife, \u00a7 135 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show agency of husband for wife. In an action by a wife against a third person to recover damages for the fraudulent sale of a violin to plaintiff, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that the husband acted as agent for the wife in making the purchase although she was present at the time of the sale and took some part in the conversation relating to such sale.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Keabns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 5, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by A. L. St. George, plaintiff, against James A. Printy, defendant, plaintiff claiming false and fraudulent representations in the sale by defendant to her of a violin. From a judgment for defendant, on trial by the court, plaintiff appeals.\nM. J. St. George, for appellant.\nCharles Daniels and Michael P. Morrissey, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0304-01",
  "first_page_order": 328,
  "last_page_order": 328
}