{
  "id": 4947207,
  "name": "Benjamin L. T. Bourland v. George L. Gibson et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bourland v. Gibson",
  "decision_date": "1887-11-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "416",
  "last_page": "417",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 416"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 Ill. App. 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2414117
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/21/0043-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 119,
    "char_count": 1177,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15451035948427883
    },
    "sha256": "969596de9386a1afbab8545c0cc81ba9cc242cff0482ed2a0efeafda4dec4c9e",
    "simhash": "1:313cc852893ca6c0",
    "word_count": 203
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:00:37.527249+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Benjamin L. T. Bourland v. George L. Gibson et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Quriami.\nThis case was here last at the May term, 1886 (21 Ill. App. 43). Ho statement of the case is deemed necessary. Since it was remanded the plaintiff filed an additional replication setting np that he had not refused to deliver the deed, to which the court properly sustained a demurrer. The plea'showed a defense that the note was given for the consideration of the deed, which was not delivered, not met by the replication.\nThe issue of fact was then submitted to the jury and was found for the defendant. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and this is the only point now left for consideration. The judgment will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Quriami."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Moobe & Warner, for appellant.",
      "Mr. James S. Ewing, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Benjamin L. T. Bourland v. George L. Gibson et al.\nAction on Uf\u00f3te\u2014Replication\u2014Evidence.\nIn an action on a promissory note, it is held: That a demurrer to the replication was properly sustained, as the plea showed a defense not met by it; and that the evidence sustains the verdict for the defendant,\n[Opinion filed November 18, 1887.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of DeWitt County; the Hon. G. W. Hebdman, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Moobe & Warner, for appellant.\nMr. James S. Ewing, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0416-01",
  "first_page_order": 412,
  "last_page_order": 413
}