{
  "id": 5094061,
  "name": "A. J. O'Reilly v. E. M. Samuels",
  "name_abbreviation": "O'Reilly v. Samuels",
  "decision_date": "1894-12-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "438",
  "last_page": "438",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 438"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 93,
    "char_count": 863,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "sha256": "567cce144d7573d666e7209eb66b61bd42db98b36acaf0070cebc426b70174b8",
    "simhash": "1:995f16b89255b28a",
    "word_count": 142
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. J. O\u2019Reilly v. E. M. Samuels."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action upon a promissory note.\nThe defendant endeavored to show by cross-examination of the plaintiff that the note was given for losses sustained in a gambling transaction on the Board of Trade.\nOnly a question of fact is involved. We see no sufficient reason for interfering with the judgment of the Superior Court and it is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. L. Smith, attorney for appellant.",
      "Griffin & Bradley, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. J. O\u2019Reilly v. E. M. Samuels.\n1. Questions or Fact\u2014Verdict Conclusive.\u2014Upon questions of fact the verdict of a jury is, ordinarily, conclusive.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit on a promissory note. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed December 6, 1894.\nL. L. Smith, attorney for appellant.\nGriffin & Bradley, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0438-01",
  "first_page_order": 434,
  "last_page_order": 434
}