{
  "id": 5120933,
  "name": "Griggs v. Ganford",
  "name_abbreviation": "Griggs v. Ganford",
  "decision_date": "1893-01-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "172",
  "last_page": "173",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 172"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 139,
    "char_count": 1460,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.260605650599215e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2695767204960598
    },
    "sha256": "d9394b5de60e7049940d64b80d45cb8ee7a819c15fa25800d81b071eee826383",
    "simhash": "1:0903aef192bf878d",
    "word_count": 242
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Griggs v. Ganford."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion of the Court,\nWaterman, J.\nThis was an action of assumpsit brought by appellee to recover for his services as custodian.\nIt was a question of fact, the dispute being mainly whether his employment was authorized by the appellant. We do not find any sufficient warrant for disturbing the conclusion arrived at by the court below, save that the undisputed evidence showing, as it does, a service of only fifty-one days at five dollars a day, and fifteen dollars paid upon this, the judgment should not have been for more than $240.\nInterest was not recoverable on this disputed account. The case having been tried by the court, the judgment for \u00a7255 rendered will be set aside, and judgment here entered for \u00a7240 damages, and \u00a76, the costs of the Superior Court.\nAppellant will recover his costs in this court.\nJudgment set aside and judgment entered by this court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Waterman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. M. Hardy, attorney for appellant.",
      "Max Robinson, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Griggs v. Ganford.\n1. Interest\u2014Disputed Accounts.\u2014Interest is not recoverable on an account for services where the employment is disputed.\n2. Memorandum.\u2014Assumpsit for services. Summons dated May 17, 1891. Declaration on the common counts. Plea, general issue and affidavit of merits. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from, the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, A. D. 1892.\nOpinion filed January 30, 1893.\nThe opinion states the case.\nO. M. Hardy, attorney for appellant.\nMax Robinson, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0172-01",
  "first_page_order": 168,
  "last_page_order": 169
}