{
  "id": 5162092,
  "name": "Thomas D. Randal and George S. Bridges, Partners as T. D. Randall & Co., v. Eugene Gehm",
  "name_abbreviation": "Randal v. Gehm",
  "decision_date": "1895-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "308",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 307"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 104,
    "char_count": 1012,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "sha256": "2802c11bd3b6e91441bc08f8ea80a22843a91dc4d7b980c4de48bab24c29380c",
    "simhash": "1:97e15ecc0c79a221",
    "word_count": 168
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas D. Randal and George S. Bridges, Partners as T. D. Randall & Co., v. Eugene Gehm."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe controversy in this case is whether the appellee pit id the collector of the appellants for a car load of potatoes. Either the appellee or the collector perjured himself, and it is impossible that we should know which did. The court without a jury found for the appellee, whose version was in keeping with the fact that he had the collector\u2019s receipt, and such finding is conclusive.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Simeon Straus, attorney for appellants.",
      "E. L. \u00a1Rinehart, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas D. Randal and George S. Bridges, Partners as T. D. Randall & Co., v. Eugene Gehm.\n1. Questions of Fact\u2014Finding by the Court Conclusive.\u2014Where the evidence is conflicting, the finding of the court upon questions of fact is conclusive.\nAssumpsit, for goods sold, etc. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jonas Hutchinson, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term,\n1895. Affirmed.\nOpinion filed December 12, 1895.\nSimeon Straus, attorney for appellants.\nE. L. \u00a1Rinehart, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 305,
  "last_page_order": 306
}