{
  "id": 2416581,
  "name": "John Bowers v. S. O. Davis",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bowers v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1886-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "296",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 Ill. App. 296"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1768,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "sha256": "3028c4e16c624c388baacdd8fe2105086165cc4a05929aeb9754fc32e7b0571e",
    "simhash": "1:86d286459a36a9c7",
    "word_count": 303
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:21.717522+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Bowers v. S. O. Davis."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellee brought this suit before a Justice of the Peace to recover for work done under a special contract for constructing tile ditch and appealed to the County Court where there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for 846.32 and costs. A new trial was denied.\nThe evidence strongly tends to show a failure by plaintiff to make the ditch as agreed in respect to depth and fall, and that defendant refused to accept it as it was. The court instructed the jury that plaintiff must show performance according to the original agreement, unless it was afterward changed by mutual consent \u2014 of which there was no evidence. A strong preponderance of the evidence also showed that defendant was to pay for the work in cash on the first day of August, or then give his note for it payable in one year with interest, and that this suit was commenced on the 28th day of July preceding. Yet the court refused an instruction that in such case plaintiff could not recover in this action.\nFor these errors the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. William Shoot, for appellant.",
      "No counsel appeared for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Bowers v. S. O. Davis.\nAction on Contract for Constructing Tile Ditch \u2014 Performance\u2014Evidence \u2014Commencement of Suit \u2014 Time of \u2014 Instructions,\nIn an action to recover for work done under a special contract for constructing a tile ditch, it is held: That the evidence tends to show a failure of performance of the contract., and that the court below erred in refusing an instruction as to the time of commencing the suit, the evidence tending to show that it was prematurely brought.\n[Opinion filed November 20, 1886.]\nAppeal from the County Court of Moultrie County; the Hon. Jonathan Meeker, Judge, presiding.\nMr. William Shoot, for appellant.\nNo counsel appeared for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0296-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 293
}