{
  "id": 5088406,
  "name": "James K. Crooks et al. v. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crooks v. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1895-05-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "568",
  "last_page": "569",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 568"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "516, 517"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 Ill. 178",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "168"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2166,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "sha256": "36e60a5274f100782b991b46cb837284f561ac4f5a996e3f8e0d0201d83c89dc",
    "simhash": "1:5845513b5677bb72",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James K. Crooks et al. v. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellee brought suit against appellants and recovered judgment for $1,000; from this appellants have appealed.\nAppellants insist that the court below erred in these particulars :\n1st. In refusing to find for the appellants upon the first and second amended counts of appellee\u2019s declaration because of the variance between each of them and the proof.\n2d. In refusing to find for appellants upon the common counts, since the evidence did not make a case under them.\n3d. In refusing to find for appellants because of the insufficiency of appellee\u2019s proof in not showing an offer by appellee to arbitrate.\n4th. In awarding excessive damages to appellee.\nAs to the error first charged it is sufficient to say that no variance was pointed out, and an opportunity given to amend against it. McCormick v. Durand, 37 Ill. App. 167, 168; affirmed, 136 Ill. 178; L. S. & M. S. Co. v. Ward, 33 Ill. 511, 516, 517.\nIf the court erred in not finding for appellants upon the common counts, such error is not shown to have been of any consequence. There was no agreement to arbitrate that constituted any defense to this suit.\nThe appellants\u2019 motion for a new trial did not set forth that the damages awarded were excessive. We have examined the evidence and see no sufficient reason for thinking the judgment to be opposed to the law and the evidence.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Remy & Mann, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Rosenthal, K\u00fcez & Hirschl, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James K. Crooks et al. v. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.\n1. Variances\u2014Must be Pointed Out.\u2014A variance between the pleadings and the proofs must be pointed out in the court below, and an opportunity given to amend against it.\n2. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Motions for New Trials\u2014Grounds. \u2014 Where a motion for anew trial does not set forth that the damages were excessive, the point can not be raised on appeal.\nAssumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 16, 1895.\nRemy & Mann, attorneys for appellants.\nRosenthal, K\u00fcez & Hirschl, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0568-01",
  "first_page_order": 564,
  "last_page_order": 565
}