{
  "id": 5194045,
  "name": "George B. Largent and William Reinhard v. Maggie Aldridge",
  "name_abbreviation": "Largent v. Aldridge",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "369",
  "last_page": "370",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 369"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1416,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "sha256": "4203c6640ebc4435fee00801f0178324321df845d29817dd133f63c9183852f8",
    "simhash": "1:f5bec924e38d86b1",
    "word_count": 240
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George B. Largent and William Reinhard v. Maggie Aldridge."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Wall\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThe sole question argued in this case is whether the sig.nature of Reinhard to the promissory note in suit is genuine. The jury found it was and the court overruled a motion for new trial. Ho error in the admission of evidence or in the giving of instructions is urged. Turning to the evidence as it appears in the abstract we find it is very conflicting\u2014the volume on the one side being about equal to that on the other. Hence it was a question of credibility to a very great extent, and that was peculiarly one for the jury. Certainly there was enough evidence, if credible, to support the verdict, and that opposed is not so overwhelming in quantity or quality as to warrant a reversal.\nThe judgment must be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Wall"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Salmans & Draper, attorneys for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Kimbrough & Meeks, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George B. Largent and William Reinhard v. Maggie Aldridge.\n1. Verdicts\u2014Upon Conflicting Evidence.\u2014When, the question in issue is one of fact,the evidence conflicting, and there is credible evidence enough to support the verdict, if that opposed is not overwhelming in quantity or quality, the judgment will be affirmed.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note. Error to the Circuit Court of Vermilion County; the Hon. Ferdinand Bookwalter, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 21, 1896.\nSalmans & Draper, attorneys for plaintiffs in error.\nKimbrough & Meeks, attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0369-01",
  "first_page_order": 367,
  "last_page_order": 368
}