{
  "id": 2921030,
  "name": "William J. Corrigan, Appellant, v. Andrew J. Harris, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Corrigan v. Harris",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,008",
  "first_page": "291",
  "last_page": "292",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 291"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 148,
    "char_count": 1669,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.550426148580522e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4015263052015774
    },
    "sha256": "9727fc0ea0030f83b37e4d18bcf67fd6b10ef999513a31a7c338e3e246c346c7",
    "simhash": "1:595f40a1483e21b8",
    "word_count": 277
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William J. Corrigan, Appellant, v. Andrew J. Harris, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Set-off and recoupment, \u00a7 40*- \u2014 when evidence sufficient to show loan made basis of set-off. In an action by an indorsee on a note, in which a set-off for money loaned to the payee was interposed, evidence held sufficient to show such loan.\n3. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 29* \u2014 when judgment of not disturbed. A judgment of the Municipal Court will not be disturbed on appeal unless contrary to the greater weight of evidence.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel J. Hamblen, for appellant.",
      "Montgomery, Hart, Smith & Steers, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William J. Corrigan, Appellant, v. Andrew J. Harris, Appellee.\nGen. No. 23,008.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 251 \u2014 what defense is available against purchaser after maturity. In an action on a note, evidence held sufficient to show that the note given by defendant was accommodation paper, given without consideration, and that it came into possession of plaintiff after maturity, so as to be subject to all defenses available in favor of maker against payee.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Leo J. Doyle, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 2, 1917.\nRehearing denied October 15, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by William J. Corrigan, plaintiff, against Andrew J. Harris, defendant, to recover on a note for $800, payable to B. Gr. Howse, and by the latter indorsed to plaintiff. \u2022 From a judgment of ml capiat, in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nSamuel J. Hamblen, for appellant.\nMontgomery, Hart, Smith & Steers, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic, and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0291-01",
  "first_page_order": 317,
  "last_page_order": 318
}