{
  "id": 5406494,
  "name": "Anna Krecun, Appellee, v. Samuel J. Rosenthal, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Krecun v. Rosenthal",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,334",
  "first_page": "456",
  "last_page": "456",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 456"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1613,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "sha256": "1046572700776d2f94ff0042f55d88b4f39ff03a84a80ddbf148db23b01bed78",
    "simhash": "1:88318607192dd278",
    "word_count": 261
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Anna Krecun, Appellee, v. Samuel J. Rosenthal, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alexander Woloshen and Zoline & Levinson, for appellant; Morris K. Levinson, of counsel.",
      "William Reeda and Levin & Krinsky, for appellee; Harry H. Krinsky, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Anna Krecun, Appellee, v. Samuel J. Rosenthal, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,334.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Assumpsit, Action of, \u00a7 89*\u2014when evidence is sufficient to sustain verdict for plaintiff in action to recover money. In an action to recover money, where plaintiff claimed that the amount in question had been deposited with the defendant for safe keeping while her husband was going through bankruptcy, and the defendant claimed that it was paid to him. in payment of a debt owing to him from plaintiff\u2019s husband, evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.\n2. Assumpsit, Action of, \u00a7 44 \u2014when ownership of money is immaterial. In an action for money had and received, the question of the ownership of the money is immaterial, as such question can he raised only by the equitable owner.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 1, 1917.\nRehearing denied May 14, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Anna Krecun, plaintiff, against Samu\u00e9l J. Rosenthal, defendant, for money had and received. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nAlexander Woloshen and Zoline & Levinson, for appellant; Morris K. Levinson, of counsel.\nWilliam Reeda and Levin & Krinsky, for appellee; Harry H. Krinsky, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, tame topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0456-01",
  "first_page_order": 484,
  "last_page_order": 484
}