{
  "id": 5412289,
  "name": "Thede Brothers, Appellees, v. Newton Matthews, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thede Bros. v. Matthews",
  "decision_date": "1916-08-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,253",
  "first_page": "507",
  "last_page": "508",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 507"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 139,
    "char_count": 1679,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "sha256": "b4f88fd96df1f72f004bf4e910fc65624547d4e6237f0a2534053eeaf40d43a8",
    "simhash": "1:4f6593f1f009ab34",
    "word_count": 264
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thede Brothers, Appellees, v. Newton Matthews, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dibell\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Contracts, \u00a7 85 \u2014when promise to pay for removal of building is based upon sufficient consideration. Where defendant had consented that a certain building should be placed on his land, held sufficient consideration appeared for his promise to pay for its subsequent removal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dibell"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kirk & Shurtleff, for appellant.",
      "Frank A. Hall, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thede Brothers, Appellees, v. Newton Matthews, Appellant.\nGen. No. 6,253.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 107 \u2014when telephone conversation is admissible. A telephone conversation is admissible in evidence if the witness identified the voice, and its force would depend on whether the jury believed the witness.\n2. Contracts, \u00a7 385 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show promise to pay for removal of building. Evidence held sufficient to sustain the finding of the court that defendant promised to pay plaintiffs the expense of moving a certain building from his land, in an action to recover for such expense.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Theodore N. Green, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed August 10, 1916.\nRehearing denied October 5, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Thede Brothers, plaintiffs, against Newton Matthews, defendant, to recover fifteen dollars for moving a building from defendant\u2019s premises. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.\nKirk & Shurtleff, for appellant.\nFrank A. Hall, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV# and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0507-01",
  "first_page_order": 531,
  "last_page_order": 532
}