{
  "id": 5186587,
  "name": "Hickey & Spieker Co. v. W. S. Bailey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hickey & Spieker Co. v. Bailey",
  "decision_date": "1896-06-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 Ill. App. 305"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "153 Ill. 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3029962
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/153/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5099726
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/54/0298-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1489,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1561058192968007
    },
    "sha256": "2b7b038237fc4483b66712cae7228320480556b98e75e29e56342a9e17d7bd20",
    "simhash": "1:02e215b0140ba809",
    "word_count": 254
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:14.451346+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hickey & Spieker Co. v. W. S. Bailey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe.first complaint of the appellant is that the motion to-get this case off the \u201c Short Cause Calendar \u201d was denied; but while the record does show very strenuous efforts to get the cause off, it does not show that it was ever on such calendar.\nThe suit is upon a check, given by appellant to Alex. W. Winter, and payment stopped by appellant. Winter indorsed it to appellee, but his title is conceded to be only the same as Winter\u2019s.\nThe consideration of the check was commissions supposed to have been earned by Winter. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the commissions were earned, upon which the finding of the judge, trying the case without a jury, is conclusive; also a question whether Winter was entitled to commissions'\u2014he having no broker\u2019s license, upon which the evidence was not sufficient to take the case out of the principle of O\u2019Neil v. Sinclair, 54 Ill. App. 298; 153 Ill. 525.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winters & Jackson, attorneys for appellant.",
      "M. L. Thaokaberry, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hickey & Spieker Co. v. W. S. Bailey.\n1. Trials by the Court\u2014Findings Conclusive.\u2014 The findings of the judge when trying a case without a jury, is as a general rule conclusive upon questions of fact.\nAssumpsit, upon a check, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook-County; the Hon. Charles GK Neely, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March terra, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 29, 1896.\nWinters & Jackson, attorneys for appellant.\nM. L. Thaokaberry, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-01",
  "first_page_order": 301,
  "last_page_order": 302
}