{
  "id": 2949078,
  "name": "Frank C. Dixon, Appellee, v. Smith-Wallace Shoe Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dixon v. Smith-Wallace Shoe Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,551",
  "first_page": "336",
  "last_page": "336",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 336"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1517,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "sha256": "8e2e9b473dd1ecd59ee2c42874b6d752255e6ff5d81055c1558317288a79b5b7",
    "simhash": "1:471fa6b11c0ca6da",
    "word_count": 247
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank C. Dixon, Appellee, v. Smith-Wallace Shoe Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brothers & Fairfield, for appellant; Elmer D. Brothers, of counsel.",
      "Brady, Rutledge & Devaney, for appellee; Andrew Rutledge, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank C. Dixon, Appellee, v. Smith-Wallace Shoe Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,551.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 228 \u2014when judgments of courts of record are admissible. Judgments of courts of record must, to he admissible \u2018in evidence, be proven in conformity to Rev. St. ch. 51, sec. 13 (J. & A. \u00b6 5530).\n2. Maaicious prosecution, \u00a7 74*\u2014when evid\u00e9nce is insufficient to establish fact of action or of judgment. In an action to recover for alleged malicious prosecution of a civil action in a foreign State, the testimony of the plaintiff as to such judgment and of another witness as to such action, held to be insufficient to establish the fact of the action or of the judgment.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthiia, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October. term, 1916.\nReversed with judgment of nil capiat and for costs.\nOpinion filed March 12, 1917.\nRehearing denied March 26, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Frank C. Dixon, plaintiff, against Smith-Wallace Shoe Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover for alleged malicious prosecution of a foreign civil action. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nBrothers & Fairfield, for appellant; Elmer D. Brothers, of counsel.\nBrady, Rutledge & Devaney, for appellee; Andrew Rutledge, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0336-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 362
}