{
  "id": 4985918,
  "name": "A. C. Huston v. John H. Boltz et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Huston v. Boltz",
  "decision_date": "1889-09-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "449",
  "last_page": "450",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 Ill. App. 449"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. App. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        863660
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/23/0579-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 114,
    "char_count": 1152,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15469434704494356
    },
    "sha256": "18426523d7eec0b27a0c1164b2ccd8175610df0b68f1b7b5eab2644d0d3bfca0",
    "simhash": "1:27d9b989f0609258",
    "word_count": 204
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:56.882977+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. C. Huston v. John H. Boltz et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAn opinion was rendered in this case which is found under the title of Boltz et al. v. Huston, 23 Ill. App. 579. The judgment of the Oounty Court was then reversed and the case remanded. On a new trial in that court there was a finding and judgment for appellees in conformity with the opinion of this court. Appellant, believing new and material facts were proven in the last trial, brings the case to this court again for review. Careful examination of the record fails to reveal any material change in the evidence. Any further review of the law or facts would be mere repetition of what is already set forth in 23 Ill. App. 579. The judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. C. M. Hardy, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Marston, Au&ur & Tuttle, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. C. Huston v. John H. Boltz et al.\nSales\u2014Balance on Account\u2014Recovery of\u2014Solicitor of Orders\u2014Evidence.\nIn an action to recover the price of a lot of cigars, this court, in view of the evidence, declines to interfere with a judgment for the plaintiffs.\n[Opinion filed September 11, 1889.]\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard Prbndergast, Judge, presiding.\nMr. C. M. Hardy, for appellant.\nMessrs. Marston, Au&ur & Tuttle, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0449-01",
  "first_page_order": 447,
  "last_page_order": 448
}