{
  "id": 5203126,
  "name": "Otto Niedner et al. v Harry Friedrich",
  "name_abbreviation": "Niedner v. Friedrich",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "622",
  "last_page": "623",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 622"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 147",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        859941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/37/0147-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2651037
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0512-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5447269
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/138/0158-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5177196
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/64/0161-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 2991,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.059989733099374e-07,
      "percentile": 0.556398075717928
    },
    "sha256": "77022375836c86ce915d00c6948d96410cbef4909b6fcffee794bc1aea7db0fb",
    "simhash": "1:89110f3f180613c8",
    "word_count": 534
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Otto Niedner et al. v Harry Friedrich."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nUpon conflicting evidence a jury has found that the appellants, a firm composed of a father and two sons, junk dealers, took the business and stock of another son, separately engaged in the same line, under an agreement with him to pay his debts, and that among those debts was the one upon which the appellee has recovered in this suit.\nOn the trial the wife of the last mentioned son was admitted as a witness for the appellee.\nThis was error and duly excepted to; but in the motion for a new trial the point was omitted, and thereby waived. Brewer v. Nat. Un. Bldg. Ass\u2019n, 64 Ill. App. 161, and cases there cited in connection with Hintz v. Graupner, 138 Ill. 158.\nBy consent the court charged the jury orally\u2014how is not shown.\nOn the motion for a new trial, for the first time, so far as the record shows, the statute of frauds was presented as a defense, for, although pleaded, it does not appear that the attention of the court was ever called to the pleas. No allusion to it was made while the evidence of the agreement was being put in, nor any objection made to the reception of any testimony except as before stated.\nThe statute of frauds is a defense easily waived. Beard v. Converse, 84 Ill. 512.\nIf the appellants intended to rely upon the statute, they should not have postponed that reliance until after verdict.\nThey naturally hoped that the verdict would be in their favor, without resorting to that defense, which is not a popular one; but they may not speculate upon the chances. Taylor v. Roby, 37 Ill. App. 147.\nThis view relieves us from considering the applicability of the statute\u2014a question involved in a maze, compared with which the labyrinths of antiquity were king\u2019s highways.\nThere is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Loesoh Brothers & Howell, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Pinckney & Tatge, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Otto Niedner et al. v Harry Friedrich.\n1. New Trials\u2014Grounds for, Not Stated, are Waived.\u2014Where the reasons given for a new trial fail to show any objection to the admission of certain testimony, the admission of such testimony can not be questioned on appeal. A party will be held to have waived all causes for a new trial not set forth in his written grounds therefor.\n2. Statute of Frauds\u2014Waiver of, After Filing Pleas.\u2014Where pleas setting up the statute of frauds were filed, but were never called to the attention of the court, and no allusion was made to the statute as a defense while the evidence of the agreement sued on was being put in, nor any objection made to the reception of any testimony, such defense will be deemed waived and will not be considered on a motion for a new trial. Persons intending to rely upon the statute can not postpone that reliance until after verdict.\nAssumpsit, for labor. -Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook. County: the Hon. W. G-. Ewing, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 29, 1897.\nLoesoh Brothers & Howell, attorneys for appellants.\nPinckney & Tatge, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0622-01",
  "first_page_order": 620,
  "last_page_order": 621
}