{
  "id": 2945911,
  "name": "A. H. Baker, Appellant, v. William R. Morrison, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Morrison",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,745",
  "first_page": "429",
  "last_page": "430",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 429"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1891,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "sha256": "b4c711044d88ced8a212c958ea6133300d44a4d8678b458ff5796242b5093f34",
    "simhash": "1:4abf8205708710dc",
    "word_count": 303
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. H. Baker, Appellant, v. William R. Morrison, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1327 \u2014when propriety of judgment is presumed. Where the abstract failed to show whether a defendant\u2019s claim was in set-off or recoupment, held that the propriety of the judgment for plaintiff for one dollar would be presumed.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1575*\u2014when judgment not reversibly erroneous. A judgment for so small an amount as one dollar held not reversible for a technical error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel B. Hill and William Scott Stewart, for appellant.",
      "George L. Turnbull, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. H. Baker, Appellant, v. William R. Morrison, Appellee.\nGen. No. 22,745.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Physicians and stjegeons, \u00a7 29 \u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain claim, of recoupment. In an action by a veterinarian for services, evidence held sufficient to sustain defendant\u2019s claim of recoupment, tending to show loss of a number of defendant\u2019s horses from lack of attention by plaintiff.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 26, 1917.\nRehearing denied April 9, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by A. H. Baker, plaintiff, against William B. Morrison, defendant, to recover a balance claimed to be due for professional services as a veterinary surgeon rendered to horses belonging to defendant, pursuant to a contract. From a judgment for plaintiff for one dollar, plaintiff appeals.\nDefendant claimed in defense that plaintiff had negligently failed to perform the contract, thereby causing defendant\u2019s horses to suffer and die, with resultant damages.\nSamuel B. Hill and William Scott Stewart, for appellant.\nGeorge L. Turnbull, for appellee.\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": "0429-01",
  "first_page_order": 455,
  "last_page_order": 456
}