{
  "id": 5197739,
  "name": "James S. Quaintance v. Joseph Badham",
  "name_abbreviation": "Quaintance v. Badham",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "100",
  "last_page": "101",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 100"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 1984,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "sha256": "8b9ae6785f1781cc6c512a5ba7df0a0acdd15e8692a8d7a151d84f5422db2265",
    "simhash": "1:ce9b05e8e68aa39f",
    "word_count": 336
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James S. Quaintance v. Joseph Badham."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellee entered into a contract to drive a well upon appellant\u2019s farm, and get a good supply of water, for which appellant was to pay him $1.50 per foot through soil and $2 per'foot through rock. On the third of September, 1895, while appellee was at work, appellant seized the machinery with which appellee was at work, by virtue of a chattel mortgage which we hold to be void, and thereby stopped the work. A few days afterward appellee replevied the machinery and offered to go on with the work, but appellant would not allow him to do so.\nThis suit followed, which was defended on the ground that appellee had not complied with his contract, which, it was contended, was to procure water by September 1, 1895, and that appellee was, while working, to abstain from intoxicants.\nAppellee recovered a judgment against appellant for $292.50. There was a conflict in the evidence as to when the work was to be completed. In the conflict it was the peculiar province of the jury to decide. We think the verdict supported by the evidence.\nThere was no error of the court in refusing to allow the chattel mortgage to go in evidence. Our reasons for holding the chattel mortgage void are fully set forth in the replevin suit between Quaintance and Badham, page 87, ante, and need not be repeated in this opinion. Appellant was not justified in taking possession of the machinery and thereby stopping the work. There was no error committed by the court in the giving or refusing of instructions. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James M. Brook, attorney for appellant.",
      "Bassett & Bassett, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James S. Quaintance v. Joseph Badham.\n1. Verdict\u2014Upon Conflicting Evidence.\u2014A verdict upon conflicting evidence is, in general, conclusive.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mercer County; the Hon. John J. Glenn, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 9, 1896.\nJames M. Brook, attorney for appellant.\nBassett & Bassett, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0100-01",
  "first_page_order": 98,
  "last_page_order": 99
}