{
  "id": 2914629,
  "name": "William H. Bradley, Appellee, v. Joseph D. Hubbard, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bradley v. Hubbard",
  "decision_date": "1917-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,896",
  "first_page": "236",
  "last_page": "237",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 236"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1997,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.370710586428907e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27443742859139664
    },
    "sha256": "3484f1c0e13bd8199b1bee4dd473349cd60cf59714d9408be5bb2f21d27aff1b",
    "simhash": "1:04ed83745a2f6288",
    "word_count": 322
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William H. Bradley, Appellee, v. Joseph D. Hubbard, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Matchett\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Evidencie, \u00a7 164 \u2014when reply to letter operating as admission against interest is inadmissible. Although defendant\u2019s letter was admissible in evidence when offered by plaintiff as an admission against interest, such admission would not make competent or relevant plaintiff\u2019s reply thereto when offered by him.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Matchett"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; Edward W. Everett and Walter H. Jacobs, of counsel.",
      "Zane, Morse & McKinney, for appellee; John M. Zane, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William H. Bradley, Appellee, v. Joseph D. Hubbard, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,896. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 167 \u2014what is not evidence of acquiescence in facts stated in letter. The mere fact that a letter received is not answered is not evidence of acquiescence by the party receiving it in the fact stated in it.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 164*\u2014when letter is not admissible in evidence. A letter is not admissible in evidence on behalf of the writer merely because it was in reply to a letter from another party.\n3. Evidence, ' \u00a7 165*\u2014what does not make self-serving letter, admissible. A self-serving letter written by one party is not made admissible in evidence on his behalf by his first offering in evidence a self-serving letter written by another party to which the former letter was a reply. ' . , 3'-,. ,\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William Fenimobe Cooper, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1917.\nRehearing denied January 2, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by William H. Bradley, plaintiff, against Joseph D. Hubbard, defendant, in assumpsit. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nWinston, Payne, Strawn & Shaw, for appellant; Edward W. Everett and Walter H. Jacobs, of counsel.\nZane, Morse & McKinney, for appellee; John M. Zane, of counsel.\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": "0236-01",
  "first_page_order": 264,
  "last_page_order": 265
}