{
  "id": 5171030,
  "name": "Isaac Reynolds v. Derby Cycle Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reynolds v. Derby Cycle Co.",
  "decision_date": "1896-03-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "21",
  "last_page": "22",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 21"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1777,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "sha256": "20c5ef81da8aece61e9b0b5a6295d190264664edc196013bc893b2cfeee96abf",
    "simhash": "1:27877978b41ab0d2",
    "word_count": 286
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:49.987215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Isaac Reynolds v. Derby Cycle Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOnly a question of fact is involved in this appeal. The evidence is contradictory, and there is no such preponderance thereof as warrants our reversing the finding and judgment of the court below. The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richards & Addington, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Alfred D. Eddy, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Isaac Reynolds v. Derby Cycle Company.\n1. Trial\u2014By the Court, When Conclusive.\u2014A finding and judgment upon contradictory evidence will not be disturbed.\nAssumpsit, goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Circuit Court or Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 3, 1896.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis is an action of assumpsit brought by appellee against appellant in the Circuit Court of Cook County to recover an amount alleged to be due from appellant to appellee for certain merchandise (chiefly bicycles), claimed to have been sold and delivered by appellee to appellant. Appellee filed a declaration consisting of the common counts, also a bill of particulars.\nAppellant filed the plea of the general issue, accompanied by affidavits of merits. Appellee then filed a similiter. The cause was subsequently, by agreement of the parties, submitted to the court and tried (without a jury) before one of the judges of said Circuit Court, who, after hearing the evidence and the arguments of counsel, found the issues for appellee, assessed its damages at $739.40, and, after overruling appellant\u2019s motion for a new trial, rendered judgment in favor of appellee and against appellant for said sum of $739.40, to reverse which judgment this case is now presented to this court on appeal.\nRichards & Addington, attorneys for appellant.\nAlfred D. Eddy, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0021-01",
  "first_page_order": 17,
  "last_page_order": 18
}