{
  "id": 5176483,
  "name": "Mary Corrigan v. Minnie Reid",
  "name_abbreviation": "Corrigan v. Reid",
  "decision_date": "1896-06-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "606",
  "last_page": "607",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 606"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 2359,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "sha256": "307aaff98f174949a16ab8174fb14a0a89178bfb0a954e80ccd30191ba4c24de",
    "simhash": "1:8463a3a8e4f9f79c",
    "word_count": 397
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary Corrigan v. Minnie Reid."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nMinnie Reid was a legatee under the will of Michael Corrigan. -Mary Corrigan, his widow, appeared to have an interest in having the legacy to Minnie Reid charged upon the residuary estate devised by the will of Michael Corrigan. The right to so charge this legacy was disputed by such devisees. ,\nUnder these circumstances, it is alleged that Mrs. Corrigan authorized Minnie Reid to commence suit to obtain a construction of the will favorable to her claim that the legacy to her should be charged against the estate given to the residuary devisees, and promised Minnie that she, Mary, would defray the expense of conducting such suit.\nMinnie Reid began the suit, obtained a decree in the Circuit Court favorable to her claim, which decree was reversed in the Appellate Court; whereupon she applied to the Supreme Court, with the result that there the decree of the Circuit Court was affirmed.\nMrs. Corrigan paid the expense of the proceeding through the Circuit Court and Appellate Court.\nTo obtain what Minnie Reid paid for the expense of carrying the case to the Supreme Court this suit was brought. The dispute is entirely concerning a question of fact. The jury were by the evidence warranted in finding for the plaintiff. There was good reason for the alleged promise of appellant, as well as a valid consideration for such promise.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Oscab E. Leinen, attorney for appellant.",
      "Richard Prendergast, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary Corrigan v. Minnie Reid.\n1. Verdicts\u2014Questions of Fact.\u2014A verdict upon questions of fact is, as a general rule, conclusive upon the parties.\nAssumpsit, for money paid, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this Court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 11, 1896.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis was an action brought by Minnie Beid, appellee, against Mary Corrigan, appellant, for the purpose of charging Mary Corrigan with attorney\u2019s fees and costs in a suit entitled Reid v. Corrigan, on the appeal of the suit by Minnie Reid from the decision of the Appellate to the Supreme Court. The present action was tried in the Circuit Court, with the result of a verdict and judgment for appellee, for $863.88, upon which verdict a judgment was entered.\nOscab E. Leinen, attorney for appellant.\nRichard Prendergast, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0606-01",
  "first_page_order": 604,
  "last_page_order": 605
}