{
  "id": 5252075,
  "name": "Margaretha Dovenmuehle, Executrix, etc., v. Herman Eilenberger",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dovenmuehle v. Eilenberger",
  "decision_date": "1897-05-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "180",
  "last_page": "181",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 180"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 593",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5316925
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0593-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        824022
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/78/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2637237
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/69/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. App. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5184580
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/66/0349-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2226,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.4916476050659184e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28159209282085557
    },
    "sha256": "438a2a95056c169ae631aa76a11e36878786e24eb3dade361e27bfe01dbd6fc7",
    "simhash": "1:f66b1feb3d2e1860",
    "word_count": 385
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Margaretha Dovenmuehle, Executrix, etc., v. Herman Eilenberger."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellant argues that the peremptory instruction of the court to find for the defendant\u2014the appellee\u2014was contrary to the opinion of this court in Berkowsky v. Viall, 66 Ill. App. 349. There is no resemblance between the cases. The recovery there was upon the express promise (as the jury found in effect) to pay for goods which the appellee declined to furnish except upon that promise; and no mention was made in the court below o\u00a3 a defense under the statute of frauds. Whether the contractors were by the parties regarded as also liable or not does not appear in the report. The case is much like Clifford v. Luhring, 69 Ill. 401, and Schoenfield v. Brown, 78 Ill. 487.\nHere the whole conversation upon which the appellant relies was on the subject of a guaranty, and the attorney of the appellant, on the trial called his action one for \u201c five hundred dollars, which we claim was guaranteed here.\u201d\nThe case as presented by the appellant is that the brother of the appellee wanted to buy goods from the appellant\u2014 that the appellant wanted security, and that the result of a conversation between the parties was\u2014as the appellant described it in his testimony,\u201c an understanding I would submit a writing, and that the writing was to be the evidence of the security or guaranty that would give his brother credit.\u201d\nIncautiously the appellant sold and delivered the goods without getting the writing, and then the appellee refused to sign it.\nThe case is governed by the rule followed in Geary v. O\u2019Neil, 73 Ill. 593.\nThe statute of frauds is a complete defense, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert H. Eastman, attorney for appellant.",
      "Sigmund Zeisler, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Margaretha Dovenmuehle, Executrix, etc., v. Herman Eilenberger.\n1. Statute of Frauds\u2014Applied.\u2014The court discusses the evidence and holds that the agreement sued on is a promise to answer for the debt of another and that not being in writing an action upon it is barred by the statute of frauds.\nAssumpsit, on a guaranty. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon.\" Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 24, 1897.\nAlbert H. Eastman, attorney for appellant.\nSigmund Zeisler, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0180-01",
  "first_page_order": 180,
  "last_page_order": 181
}