{
  "id": 856624,
  "name": "Charles E. Reeve v. Mary E. Peppard",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reeve v. Peppard",
  "decision_date": "1895-02-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "556",
  "last_page": "557",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 556"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5100039
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/54/0157-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 2432,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5196177460539205
    },
    "sha256": "f8d684ba12f8f3e9ef7ead75471131124e6a440042c4d5de26aa95e963d6521a",
    "simhash": "1:85fd04fc66f2a9d5",
    "word_count": 429
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:41.767696+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles E. Reeve v. Mary E. Peppard."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opihioh of the Court.\nIn 1890, the appellant made a contract to sell to one Barbara Bcese a lot. She sold her interest to the appellee, and a new contract was made between the appellant and the appellee, dated July 14, 1892, reciting that she had paid $195.09, on which contract she afterward paid $100 more.\nThe evidence is such that the jury doubtless believed that not only did the appellant not have any interest, nor any prospect of any interest in the lot described in the contract, but that he had no interest, nor prospect of interest, in any property in the vicinity. The evidence probably convinced the jury that the transaction on the part of the appellant was in the nature of what the statute alludes to as \u201c confidence game.\u201d\nShe sued for money had and received, and recovered $295, and the appellant has appealed.\nWe are not at liberty to say whether the evidence justified the verdict, as the bill of exceptions shows that many documents were read in evidence which, in the bill of exceptions, are described as letters of certain dates from witnesses named, and some other papers, followed by the words \u201c as Exhibit B,\u201d etc.; and then follows \u201c papers introduced and marked Exhibits B, C, D and E.\u201d Later in the bill are mentioned Exhibits F and G.\nFollowing the evidence, the instructions, and the denial of the motion for a new trial, are several pages, the first headed \u201c Plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit A,\u201d of which no mention is made in the body of the bill, and the others with the same heading, except the letters are B, O, D, E, F, G; but there is nowhere any statement identifying the papers copied on those pages as the ones referred to in the body of the bill. The case is like Page v. Northwestern Brewing Co., 54 Ill. App. 157.\nThe instructions were more favorable to the appellant than can be justified, as they quite leave out of consideration the element of good faith on his part. The judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. P. Ingram and A. J. Bedard, attorneys for appellant.",
      "P. T. Ki-jily, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles E. Reeve v. Mary E. Peppard.\n1. Bills op Exception\u2014Exhibits.\u2014The court will not consider exhibits read in evidence unless they are properly preserved in a bill of exceptions.\nMemorandum.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edmund W. Burke, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed February 12, 1895.\nA. P. Ingram and A. J. Bedard, attorneys for appellant.\nP. T. Ki-jily, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0556-01",
  "first_page_order": 552,
  "last_page_order": 553
}