{
  "id": 5406526,
  "name": "Sam Diamond, Appellee, v. Max Goldstein and Sarah Goldstein, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Diamond v. Goldstein",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,027",
  "first_page": "533",
  "last_page": "534",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 533"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 3077,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "b591558333e03830e680ab5835efd535c87dac09a8fae183cefd5fc7ddd3fc93",
    "simhash": "1:81b7aa0cd17a03f4",
    "word_count": 485
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sam Diamond, Appellee, v. Max Goldstein and Sarah Goldstein, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Taylor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Taylor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. M. Shaffner, for appellants.",
      "Maurice Alschuler, for appellee; Menz I. Rosenbaum, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sam Diamond, Appellee, v. Max Goldstein and Sarah Goldstein, Appellants.\nGen. No. 22,027.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Keabns, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 9, 1917.\nRehearing denied May 22, 1917.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Sam Diamond, plaintiff, against Max Goldstein and Sarah Goldstein, defendants, to recover \u201cfor unlawfully, fraudulently and maliciously converting and appropriating to their own use the property of the plaintiff,\u201d consisting of certain furs and dress goods, valued at $1,500. From a judgment for plaintiff for $1,672.55, on remittitur of $75, defendants appeal.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 8 \u2014when statement of claim is in conversion giving court jurisdiction. The use of the words \u201cunlawfully, fraudulently and maliciously\u201d in a statement of claim in the Municipal Court for \u201cunlawfully, fraudulently and maliciously converting certain property\u201d of the plaintiff, held not to change the nature of the charge against the defendants or affect the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court in such action for conversion of the property.\n2. Trover and conversion, \u00a7 39*\u2014what evidence is sufficient to show conversion of purchased stolen property. Testimony of a thief that the property stolen by him from the plaintiff was listed by the thief\u2019s partner and that he had everything on the list shown to the defendants, charged with conversion of plaintiff\u2019s property stolen from him, when defendants bought such property, held sufficient identification and enumeration of the property to justify the jury in concluding what property belonging to the plaintiff was actually received and converted by defendants.\n3. Trover and conversion, \u00a7 38*\u2014when evidence as to value of goods is properly admitted. In an action to recover for conversion by defendants of certain furs belonging to plaintiff, where a witness was asked if he had computed the fair, reasonable market value \u201cof all these furs,\u201d to which he answered he had, and also answered a subsequent question, over objection overruled, as to the amount, held that the objection was not well founded, as the evidence showed that both parties must have known exactly to what furs reference was made.\n4. Trover and conversion, \u00a7 39*\u2014when plaintiff only required to establish case by preponderance of evidence. Where a statement of claim charged defendants with \u201cunlawfully, fraudulently and maliciously converting certain property\u201d of the plaintiff, held that the words used did not necessarily charge a crime, and plaintiff was required to establish the material issues in such claim only by a preponderance of the evidence.\nB. M. Shaffner, for appellants.\nMaurice Alschuler, for appellee; Menz I. Rosenbaum, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0533-01",
  "first_page_order": 561,
  "last_page_order": 562
}