{
  "id": 5817727,
  "name": "A. Anderson Decorating Company, Appellee, v. Nels Gross, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "A. Anderson Decorating Co. v. Gross",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,254",
  "first_page": "97",
  "last_page": "98",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 97"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 1955,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "sha256": "1bf93b4e559ca59d55e759c90de4da4d8de0cffc0b928426038012da48e14afa",
    "simhash": "1:543d95a3788b101d",
    "word_count": 316
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. Anderson Decorating Company, Appellee, v. Nels Gross, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thomson\ndelivered the opinion of the iourt.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 73 \u2014what is not proper rebuttal testimony. Certain photographs offered by defendant as demonstrating and illustrating certain claimed defects in plaintiff\u2019s work were properly excluded in rebuttal to plaintiff\u2019s rebuttal which had brought no new matter into the case but had merely denied the existence of each and every defect testified to by defendant and defendant\u2019s witnesses, in an action to recover for services rendered and materials furnished.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thomson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter H. Eckert, for appellant.",
      ". Beach & Beach, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. Anderson Decorating Company, Appellee, v. Nels Gross, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,254.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and eebob, \u00a7 1414 \u2014when finding of trial court not disturbed. Where the testimony on a trial before the court without a jury was sharply conflicting, and much depended on the manner in which the witnesses testified, their appearance on the stand, and such kindred matters as the trial court was in best position to observe but which could not be shown by the record, held that it would not be reasonable for the court of review to say the trial judge was not warranted in his finding.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Dennis W. Sullivan, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 13, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by A. Anderson Decorating Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Neis Gross, defendant, to recover for services rendered and materials furnished in decorating an apartment in a building owned by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $265.70, on trial by the court without a jury, defendant appeals.\nWalter H. Eckert, for appellant.\n. Beach & Beach, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. 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": "0097-01",
  "first_page_order": 123,
  "last_page_order": 124
}