{
  "id": 2914786,
  "name": "Kate S. Caruthers, Appellee, v. Joe Macaluso, trading as Joe Macaluso & Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Caruthers v. Macaluso",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,615",
  "first_page": "542",
  "last_page": "543",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 542"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1694,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "sha256": "67cc4f0fea1fe303d56d6a3c04c1bc7aeff9ce4f35e06d0fd6f8c642f1664190",
    "simhash": "1:170ec6f4949fcbdc",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kate S. Caruthers, Appellee, v. Joe Macaluso, trading as Joe Macaluso & Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Schaffner & Friend, for appellant; Thomas Jones Meek, of counsel.",
      "Loesch, Scoeield, Loesch & Bichards, for appellee; G-uerusey Orcutt, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kate S. Caruthers, Appellee, v. Joe Macaluso, trading as Joe Macaluso & Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,615. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 5, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Kate S. Caruthers, plaintiff, against Joe Macaluso, trading as Joe Macaluso & Company, defendant, for rent due under a written lease. From, a judgment on a verdict directed for plaintiff for $397.75, defendant appeals.\nSchaffner & Friend, for appellant; Thomas Jones Meek, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1752 \u2014when judgment affirmed for insufficiency of abstract. Where the abstract on an appeal does not inform the Appellate Court what the verdict and judgment were, but merely states that the jury \u201crendered its verdict, to which verdict defendant excepted,\u201d the judgment may properly be affirmed.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1165*\u2014when nothing for review on appeal. Where no evidence is \u2022 introduced in support of an allegation of the affidavit of defense claiming, a recoupment or set-off, and consequently there is no ruling of the court in regard to the competency of the evidence, but the transcript of evidence merely contains what was said between the court and counsel in arguing concerning such matter, there is in regard thereto nothing which can be reviewed on appeal.\nLoesch, Scoeield, Loesch & Bichards, for appellee; G-uerusey Orcutt, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0542-01",
  "first_page_order": 570,
  "last_page_order": 571
}