{
  "id": 4969998,
  "name": "Frey Brothers v. Harrison & Atchison and J. H. Harrison",
  "name_abbreviation": "Frey Bros. v. Harrison & Atchison",
  "decision_date": "1888-11-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "300",
  "last_page": "301",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 300"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1771,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "sha256": "5a9d120b3227b1634beeb22c536e02ae52b9224f17117b02945078ab42dffcf7",
    "simhash": "1:1391b127c6420266",
    "word_count": 299
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:26:47.112254+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frey Brothers v. Harrison & Atchison and J. H. Harrison."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wall, P. J.\nThis was replevin by appellants against the appellee. One of the pleas was property in a third person, to wit, J. H. Harrison, and this issue was found for the defendants upon a trial by the court, a jury being waived. The position of the plaintiifs was that the goods were acquired by means of the fraudulent representations of the defendants and that J. H. Harrison, to whom they (defendants) subsequently sold them in payment of a debt they owed him, had such notice of the fraud that his purchase would give him no title as against the plaintiffs, who elected to disaffirm the sale. Admitting the alleged misrepresentations, we are of opinion the evidence failed to show such notice to J. H. Harrison as would vitiate his title. At least we can not say the conclusion reached by the court is so opposed to the evidence as to require us to reverse the judgment.\nThe propositions of law held by the court included all that was material and proper to hold contained in those refused. No error is apparent and the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wall, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Bayburn & Barry and A. E. DeMange, for appellants.",
      "Messrs. Fifer & Phillips and George W. Herrick, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frey Brothers v. Harrison & Atchison and J. H. Harrison.\nSales\u2014Goods Obtained through Fraudulent Representations\u2014Sale to Third Party\u2014Notice\u2014Replevin.\nIn an action of replevin brought to recover goods alleged to have been obtained through fraudulent representations and sold to a third person having notice, this court declines to interfere with the judgment for defendant, there being no such evidence of notice as would vitiate the title of the purchaser.\n[Opinion filed November 23, 1888.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County; the lion. O. T. Beeves, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Bayburn & Barry and A. E. DeMange, for appellants.\nMessrs. Fifer & Phillips and George W. Herrick, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0300-01",
  "first_page_order": 296,
  "last_page_order": 297
}
