{
  "id": 5204448,
  "name": "Fritz F. Gerdes v. Edwin W. Hill",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gerdes v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "320",
  "last_page": "320",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 320"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 109,
    "char_count": 1061,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "sha256": "959f4b5d8e9bb9d5fe5676aaa61bb7d8bcc61d22b899c7481b91af991950cb7a",
    "simhash": "1:17a27e7290c5af48",
    "word_count": 175
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fritz F. Gerdes v. Edwin W. Hill."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion per Curiam.\nAction commenced before a justice of the peace for a balance claimed on a promissory note of appellant, assigned before due to appellee, for $175. On trial de novo, upon appealto the Circuit Court, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $90. A new trial was refused and judgment on the verdict rendered, from which defendant appealed.\nThe defense was payment, and on this single question of fact the evidence was conflicting, but in our opinion clearly sufficient to support the finding. Perceiving no material error in any ruling of the court, its judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Opinion per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Keefe & Budd and Jesse Peebles, attorneys for appellant.",
      "A. H. Yancey and E. W. Hayes, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fritz F. Gerdes v. Edwin W. Hill.\n1. Verdict\u2014On Conflicting Evidence.\u2014A verdict upon conflicting evidence is in general conclusive.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macoupin County; the Hon. Robert B. Shirley, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 19, 1896.\nKeefe & Budd and Jesse Peebles, attorneys for appellant.\nA. H. Yancey and E. W. Hayes, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0320-01",
  "first_page_order": 318,
  "last_page_order": 318
}