{
  "id": 5196208,
  "name": "C. D. F. Smith v. Albert M. Billings",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Billings",
  "decision_date": "1897-02-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "603",
  "last_page": "604",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 603"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2667,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5213514378637519
    },
    "sha256": "02373a3894bfa0f51e50abcf2c2401bb133ac5a29c742a6c1216d2a43a1b9aa2",
    "simhash": "1:43ffe125de3b30ce",
    "word_count": 456
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. D. F. Smith v. Albert M. Billings."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit brought March 8, 1894, by appellant to recover compensation for services as an attorney rendered from January 1, 1885, to October 7, 1893.\nNothing has ever been paid for the alleged services, and appellee denies not only the employment, but the service.\nThe cause was tried by the court, a jury having been waived.\nThe plaintiff also sought to recover from the defendant a balance claimed to be due plaintiff for fifty-two shares of the capital stock of the Home N ational Bank of Chicago, alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant June 11, 1891.\nThe court found the issues and rendered judgment for the defendant.\nNo complaint is made as to any holding of the court below upon any proposition of law; the entire argument, here made, is as to the alleged erroneous conclusion of -the Circuit Court upon questions of fact.\nWe have examined the voluminous abstract and briefs here presented, and are unable to say that the preponderance of the evidence is such that we ought to reverse the conclusion arrived at by the court below.\nWe regard the letter written by appellant February 13, 1893, after the termination of all the service and all the transactions for which a recovery is here sought, as inconsistent with the plaintiff\u2019s claim. True, appellant was, when he wrote this, upon a sick bed, but it does not appear that his mental faculties were impaired, or his understanding clouded.\nThe letter is rational, intelligent, consistent; it is simply not in agreement with the claim now made.\nThe evidence in the case is contradictory. Had we heard the cause in the court below we might have come to a different conclusion. The question presented to us, is not what we regard the preponderance of the evidence shows, but is the clear preponderance of the evidence so opposed to the finding that it must be set aside ? This we are unable to hold. It is no uncommon thing for men to regard transactions very differently, and consequently be at variance as to obligations, if any, arising therefrom. Such condition exists in the present case.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William P. Black, attorney for appellant.",
      "Winston & Meagher, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. D. F. Smith v. Albert M. Billings.\n1. Trial by the Court\u2014Finding Conclusive.\u2014Where the trial is by the court without a jury the finding is, as a general rule, conclusive.\nAssumpsit, for attorney\u2019s services. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 9, 1897.\nWilliam P. Black, attorney for appellant.\nWinston & Meagher, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0603-01",
  "first_page_order": 601,
  "last_page_order": 602
}