{
  "id": 5185922,
  "name": "H. W. Rokker v. Isaac Stephenson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rokker v. Stephenson",
  "decision_date": "1896-10-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "469",
  "last_page": "470",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 Ill. App. 469"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5307699
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/64/0356-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 1512,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15609713153160668
    },
    "sha256": "423173e9d557891466abebb55354be8674141da9045feb02476d50e45932f052",
    "simhash": "1:921f1c99e4da9c38",
    "word_count": 266
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:14.451346+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. W. Rokker v. Isaac Stephenson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOnly a question of fact is involved in this case, viz.: Whether plaintiff in error signed a lease, for rent accrued under which, judgment has been rendered against him.\nWe have carefully examined the testimony given upon the trial, and are of the opinion that there is no such prepondera nee of evidence in favor of the defendant below, as would warrant a reversal of the finding of the court. In saying this, we bear in mind that the judge before whom the cause was tried had an opportunity for comparing the admittedly genuine signature of plaintiff in error with that disputed, which we have not. Brobston v. Cahill, 64 Ill. 356.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McCartney & Giddings, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "Otis H. Waldo, attorney for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. W. Rokker v. Isaac Stephenson.\n1. Questions of Fact\u2014Weight of Evidence.\u2014When a case involves only questions of fact and there is no such preponderance of evidence in favor of the unsuccessful party as to warrant a reversal of the finding, it must be affirmed.\nCovenant upon a Written Lease.\u2014Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 22, 1896.\nMcCartney & Giddings, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nIn trials by the court the general rule is that the decision will be reversed or affirmed by the same rules-which govern when the facts are tried by a jury. Field v. C. & R. I. R. R. Co., 71 Ill. 461.\nOtis H. Waldo, attorney for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0469-01",
  "first_page_order": 465,
  "last_page_order": 466
}