{
  "id": 3021791,
  "name": "Mary Lawson, Defendant in Error, v. A. Wilberforce Williams, sued as A. Wilerfore Williams, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lawson v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1918-05-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,453",
  "first_page": "248",
  "last_page": "249",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 248"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1826,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.515,
    "sha256": "2aa86a37ccaffe168dee3724184ddc39fed3b2b2a4925652035974599a633f24",
    "simhash": "1:c052c905534e28cf",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Lawson, Defendant in Error, v. A. Wilberforce Williams, sued as A. Wilerfore Williams, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. M. Farmer, for plaintiff in error.",
      "William S. Stahl, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary Lawson, Defendant in Error, v. A. Wilberforce Williams, sued as A. Wilerfore Williams, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,453.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed May 14, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Mary Lawson, plaintiff, against A. Wilberforce Williams, sued as A. Wilerfore Williams, defendant, to recover money claimed to be due plaintiff. From a verdict for plaintiff for a tortious conversion of her property and a judgment thereon, defendant brings error. The bill of exceptions having been stricken, review was had upon the common-law record.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nMunicipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014 when statement of claim is insufficient to support verdict in tort for conversion. A statement of claim alleging that plaintiff\u2019s claim is \u201cfor money due and received by defendant from moneys withdrawn\u201d from a certain bank during a certain period and that defendant had frequently promised to pay plaintiff \u201cthe moneys so due her from withdrawals made by him from said bank,\u201d followed by an averment that \u201cthough often requested defendant has not paid plaintiff said money * * * but has fraudulently and feloniously withdrawn said moneys from said bank and converted same to his own use,\u201d although possibly good as in assumpsit if the verdict were responsive to that theory, will not support a verdict in tort for conversion as it does not set forth the elements of a tort.\nW. M. Farmer, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam S. Stahl, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0248-01",
  "first_page_order": 302,
  "last_page_order": 303
}
