{
  "id": 2951787,
  "name": "H. L. Cavender and William E. Kaiser, trading as Cavender & Kaiser, Plaintiffs in Error, v. William J. Fox, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cavender v. Fox",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-20",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,098",
  "first_page": "401",
  "last_page": "401",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 401"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1607,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.598,
    "sha256": "fb99283b66d1ef62343c77792eb83083d010406610a8471c56338349fd82d3ba",
    "simhash": "1:5bb0c135e02780b5",
    "word_count": 269
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. L. Cavender and William E. Kaiser, trading as Cavender & Kaiser, Plaintiffs in Error, v. William J. Fox, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. W. Balcomb, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Christopher King, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. L. Cavender and William E. Kaiser, trading as Cavender & Kaiser, Plaintiffs in Error, v. William J. Fox, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 22,098.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nAttorney and client\u2014what constitutes prima facie case of fraud in action by attorneys for services. Where the plaintiffs\u2019 evidence was to the effect that the defendant had represented to them that he had seen all of the parties defendant in a certain case then pending and that all of said parties had agreed to have plaintiffs act for them as associate counsel in such case and to compensate them for such services, and that relying upon such representations plaintiffs had performed such services, and thereafter learned that defendant had no authority to engage them on behalf of said parties, and that such services were of a certain reasonable value, held that a prima facie case of fraud and deceit was made out and that the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 20, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by H. L. Cavender and William E. Kaiser, trading as Cavender & Kaiser, plaintiffs, against William J. Fox, defendant, for fraud and deceit. From a judgment for defendant on a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs\u2019 case, plaintiffs bring error.\nF. W. Balcomb, for plaintiffs in error.\nChristopher King, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0401-01",
  "first_page_order": 427,
  "last_page_order": 427
}