{
  "id": 5201075,
  "name": "Maurice Weill v. P. H. Cornell",
  "name_abbreviation": "Weill v. Cornell",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "60",
  "last_page": "61",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 60"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "22 Ill. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5280425
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/22/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. App. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2425215
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/38/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5313986
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/82/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ill. 144",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2595479
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/20/0144-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Gil. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilmer",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1229,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15631316729276495
    },
    "sha256": "03849ca3dad613a825d28100ad860d6e383f68b848c71cbbab105ad0818b7910",
    "simhash": "1:f3c23f75dc4b0a54",
    "word_count": 202
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Maurice Weill v. P. H. Cornell."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe principal contention of appellant is, that a witness was improperly permitted to testify to the contents of a written contract of employment.\nAppellant\u2019s objection tp such testimony was general only. The objection should have been specific; the matter of the testimony was competent. Norton v. Dow, 5 Gil. 459; Swift v. Whitney, 20 Ill. 144; Wright v. Smith, 82 Ill. 527; Cox v. Gerkin, 38 Ill. App. 340; Conway v. Case, 22 Ill. 127.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martin J. Isaacs, attorney for appellant.",
      "Wilber, Eldridge & Alden, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Maurice Weill v. P. H. Cornell.\n1. Evidence\u2014Objections to, Should be Speaijtc.\u2014Specific objections should be made in the trial court to the introduction of evidence if the propriety of its introduction is to be questioned on appeal.\nAssumpsit, on a contract of employment. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clieeoed, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1897.\nStatement oe the Case.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment against the appellant (defendant below) on a certain alleged contract of employment.\nMartin J. Isaacs, attorney for appellant.\nWilber, Eldridge & Alden, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0060-01",
  "first_page_order": 58,
  "last_page_order": 59
}