{
  "id": 4973979,
  "name": "Jerry Shea v. Jacob A. Wagner",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shea v. Wagner",
  "decision_date": "1888-10-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "193",
  "last_page": "194",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 193"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 1810,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "sha256": "497a4ce79f25b142e3116d2ee35d7da43557a8acfcf9eba14bbec29ca9024d61",
    "simhash": "1:35bca0827d9026e0",
    "word_count": 310
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:26:47.112254+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jerry Shea v. Jacob A. Wagner."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Guriam.\nIt is, perhaps, fortunate for both parties, that the materiality of the errors in this record is not in direct proportion to their number.\nAppellee brought the suit before a justice of the peace to recover for services as a physician, and got judgment for $30-On appeal it was stipulated that no question would be made as to the rendition or value of the services, the only defense being that they were rendered upon an express contract to effect a perfect cure of defendant\u2019s catarrh for \u00a725, which had not been effected.\nThe parties were the only witnesses to the contract or employment, and their testimony was quite irreconcilable.\nPlaintiff was permitted to prove, as in rebuttal, that on the trial before the justice he did not admit that there was a special contract of the character claimed, and also, what would be proper treatment in the cases put to the expert witnesses. No such matter had been introduced by the defendant, and, of course, all this testimony was improper ; but we do not see how it could have strengthened plaintiff\u2019s case or prejudiced that of the defendant.\nNeither the abstract nor brief gives us any idea of the instructions. We do not understand that the ruling on the motion to retax the costs is embraced in this appeal.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Guriam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. L. H. Berger, for appellant.",
      "Mr. George C. McCroee, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jerry Shea v. Jacob A. Wagner.\nPractice\u2014Error without Prejudice\u2014Physician\u2014Special Contract\u2014 Conflict of Evidence.\n1. This court will not reverse for an error in the admission of evidence which has worked no injury to the appellant.\n2. This court will not interfere with a verdict based on the conflicting testimony of the parties.\n[Opinion filed October 3, 1888.]\nAppeal from the County Court of Adams County; the Hon. B. F. Beeriae, Judge, presiding.\nMr. L. H. Berger, for appellant.\nMr. George C. McCroee, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0193-01",
  "first_page_order": 189,
  "last_page_order": 190
}
