{
  "id": 4993056,
  "name": "George P. Barton v. William Treutler",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barton v. Treutler",
  "decision_date": "1889-06-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "258",
  "last_page": "259",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 258"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 1842,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.521,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30294410986895376
    },
    "sha256": "c24f405922bb15d3b49424084674953a214ff143e87bfc87c7b3192823414c03",
    "simhash": "1:b62949b397a60c50",
    "word_count": 306
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:56.882977+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George P. Barton v. William Treutler."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis was an action to recover against appellant for a balance alleged to be due on a contract for carpenter work, and for certain extras. There were several points of contention between the parties, and the record is quite voluminous.\nWe have carefully examined and considered all the points made, and we are of opinion that no material error is shown to have been committed on the trial. It would serve no useful purpose to follow counsel for appellant in an opinion, and discuss and decide in detail, each of his contentions. As to the disputed questions of fact, the verdict of the jury is conclusive.\nThe answers given by the jury to the special interrogatories submitted to them by the court at the request of appellant, are all consistent with the general verdict, and serve to show that each issue of fact made by appellant was considered.\nThe answer to the 15th question, finding that appellant waived the production of a certificate from the architects, being supported by evidence in the record, takes out of the case appellant\u2019s principal contention, to wit, that the production of such certificate was a condition precedent to maintaining this action.\nWe find no error and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Frank H. McCulloch and Charles H. Aldrich, for appellant.",
      "Mr. C. M. Hardy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George P. Barton v. William Treutler.\nMaster and Servant\u2014Building Contractor\u2014Architect's Certificate\u2014 Waiver of\u2014Balance due\u2014Extras\u2014Evidence\u2014Special Findings.\nIn an action for the recovery of a balance claimed to be due under a building contract and for certain extras, this court, in view of the evidence, declines to interfere with a verdict for the plaintiff.\n[Opinion filed June 14, 1889.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Rollin S. Williamson, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Frank H. McCulloch and Charles H. Aldrich, for appellant.\nMr. C. M. Hardy, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0258-01",
  "first_page_order": 256,
  "last_page_order": 257
}