{
  "id": 5202447,
  "name": "Josiah H. Mannen v. Payne & Johnson, for the use of, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mannen v. Payne & Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "251",
  "last_page": "251",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 251"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 139,
    "char_count": 1602,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "sha256": "01d275fea881a41a2ae7e3ae05fe7853a782c58e96fe4aa06d84dbdcc57b6aaa",
    "simhash": "1:1ed230e8de037ed3",
    "word_count": 269
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Josiah H. Mannen v. Payne & Johnson, for the use of, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Green\ndelivered the opinion of the Oourt.\nThis suit was brought against appellant for the use aforesaid, to recover for the breach of a contract in writing, executed and delivered by appellant to Payne & \u2022 Johnson, whereby appellant sold to them 35,000 choice brick for the consideration of receipting a store account due them from one Dixon, and their note payable to the order of appellant for $100. The store account was satisfied and the note was sold by appellant before maturity. The cause was tried by the court, a jury being waved by the parties, and the court found for plaintiffs, for the use of Johnson, and assessed the damages at $29.70, for which sum and the costs judgment was entered.\nNo propositions of law were submitted and the only question for the court to determine was, whether or not appellant had fulfilled his contract by furnishing the amount of brick he had agreed to furnish. . The evidence justified the court in finding that he had not, and that by reason of such breach plaintiffs were damaged to the amount recovered. The judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Green"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George B. Leonard, attorney for appellant.",
      "Albert Watson, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Josiah H. Mannen v. Payne & Johnson, for the use of, etc.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Propositions of Law. \u2014No questions of law properly arise on appeal unless propositions of law have been submitted to the trial court.\nAssumpsit, breach of contract. Appeal from the County Court of Jefferson County; the Hon. William T. Bonham, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 3, 1897.\nGeorge B. Leonard, attorney for appellant.\nAlbert Watson, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0251-01",
  "first_page_order": 249,
  "last_page_order": 249
}
