{
  "id": 5092373,
  "name": "Lizzie E. Williams v. Thwing Electric Company et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Thwing Electric Co.",
  "decision_date": "1894-11-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "229",
  "last_page": "230",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 229"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 520",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        859889
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/37/0520-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 Ill. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2985475
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/135/0567-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 1887,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6015804396318086
    },
    "sha256": "894e8c72790b4d14bcc6f75cdee51dd292f3a82fa025c6d622c7089539189f2c",
    "simhash": "1:30f30386b99fa90b",
    "word_count": 321
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lizzie E. Williams v. Thwing Electric Company et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIn 1890, F. H. Thwing and others were organizing a corporation with a nominal capital of half a million of dollars, \u201c to manufacture and deal in lamps and general supplies.\u201d\nIt appears that the real object was to reap the hoped-for benefits of a new patent on an electric lamp, which patent the corporation took at the price of seven-tenths of its whole capital.\nThe appellant subscribed for \u00a710,000 of the stock, on which she paid \u00a72,500.\nShe filed the bill in this case to have the subscription canceled, and get back the money she has paid, on the ground of false and fraudulent representations made to her by F. II. Thwing. As to the fact of what representations he made to her, she and he were the only witnesses, and upon the hearing, the court dismissed the bill.\nIt is useless to take time and space to repeat or condense their testimony, as it would only show that the court decided upon conflicting testimony of witnesses testifying in court. In such cases,. the finding is usually conclusive. Lane v. Lesser, 135 Ill. 567; Patterson v. Scott, 37 Ill. App. 520.\nA review of all the evidence shows that sanguine hopes have proved illusory, but it does not show fraud, and the decree is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Jesse A. & Henry K. Baldwin, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lizzie E. Williams v. Thwing Electric Company et al.\n1. Questions of Fact\u2014 Conflicting Testimony.\u2014Where the court decides upon the conflicting testimony of witnesses heard in open court the finding is usually conclusive.\nMemorandum.\u2014Bill to cancel subscription to a corporation. In the Ch-cuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Oliver H. Horton, Judge, presiding. On hearing, bill dismissed for want of equity; appeal by complainant. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed November 12, 1894.\nWeigley, Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellant.\nJesse A. & Henry K. Baldwin, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0229-01",
  "first_page_order": 225,
  "last_page_order": 226
}