{
  "id": 856614,
  "name": "National Printing and Engraving Company v. Patrick J. Cook et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "National Printing & Engraving Co. v. Cook",
  "decision_date": "1895-03-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "600",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 600"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1680,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "sha256": "8448a5a32b6e56caae7b9a95ecb8ebd7baf7a1c3091626bf592723e36e1c87ce",
    "simhash": "1:5e6b97ff3455a218",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:41.767696+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "National Printing and Engraving Company v. Patrick J. Cook et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action to recover for plumbing and gas fitting done by appellee for appellant.\nSo far as the plumbing is concerned, appellee once proposed to put in appellant\u2019s building, ten closets, five urinals and five sinks for $420.\nAfter this, appellee put in four closets, two urinals and two sinks, and for this charged, and has been allowed, $449.03, being $29.03 more than the sum for .which he proposed to put in ten closets, five urinals and five sinks.\nAppellee has also recovered $153.60 for thirty-two days time of gas fitters. Appellant testified that the gas fitters idled away their time loafing and drinking beer.\nThe case was tried without a jury, and upon the conflicting testimony, appellee testifying that the prices charged were fair and reasonable, and that appellant had repeatedly promised to pay the bill, which promise appellant denies, we can not reverse the judgment. Appellee\u2019s proposal was neither accepted nor. acted upon. Better work and material may have been given than would have been the case under the proposed contract. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Defrees, Brace & Bitter, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Edward Maher and Charles C. Gilbert, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "National Printing and Engraving Company v. Patrick J. Cook et al.\n1. \"Verdicts\u2014Conflicting Testimony.\u2014When a cause is tried before a jury upon conflicting testimony, the verdict is conclusive.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit. Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the October term, 1894.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 5, 1895.\nDefrees, Brace & Bitter, attorneys for appellant.\nEdward Maher and Charles C. Gilbert, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0600-01",
  "first_page_order": 596,
  "last_page_order": 596
}