{
  "id": 5823663,
  "name": "W. L. Carwile, Appellee, v. Ira M. Cobe, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carwile v. Cobe",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,766",
  "first_page": "167",
  "last_page": "167",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 167"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1736,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "sha256": "ba78b6a4382b9d708db1a99d77bff501a12cb26c62123d2959ad3dcc94158e3f",
    "simhash": "1:015262823c8511c6",
    "word_count": 280
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. L. Carwile, Appellee, v. Ira M. Cobe, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for appellant.",
      "John B. Dandridge, for appellee; Charles M. Haet, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. L. Carwile, Appellee, v. Ira M. Cobe, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,766.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Contracts, \u00a7 177 \u2014presumption that written contract expresses intentions of parties. There is a strong presumption that when parties reduce their agreement to writing it expresses their intentions.\n2. Contracts, \u00a7 177*\u2014what proof necessary to overcome presumption that written agreement shows intentions of parties. To overcome the presumption that a written agreement contains the parties\u2019 intentions, the proof must be clear and convincing.\n3. Reformation of instruments, \u00a7 12*\u2014when reformation of contract on ground of mistahe proper. A reformation of a contract for a mistake can only be had on the ground that the mistake was mutual, and the proof must he such as to leave no fair and reasonable doubt upon the mind that the instrument does not embody the final intention of the parties, but was executed under a common mistake and expresses what neither of the parties in-\u2019 tended.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed March 25, 1918.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by W. L. Carwile, complainant, against Ira M. Cobe, defendant, for reformation of a contract. From a decree in favor of complainant for $10,000, defendant appeals.'\nMoses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for appellant.\nJohn B. Dandridge, for appellee; Charles M. Haet, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, game topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0167-01",
  "first_page_order": 193,
  "last_page_order": 193
}
