{
  "id": 5253918,
  "name": "James Conlan v. Maurice A. Mead et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Conlan v. Mead",
  "decision_date": "1897-06-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "318",
  "last_page": "319",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 318"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2411,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5213458390817379
    },
    "sha256": "a9933f49a93f1483ee2a7868dbaee034b858a8396df021e486d6ae76b557d25d",
    "simhash": "1:1ed330b45626c221",
    "word_count": 397
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Conlan v. Maurice A. Mead et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit begun by suing out an attachment against appellant and William J. Watson, as partners.\nAppellant denied that he had been or was a partner as charged, and also denied the allegations of the affidavit upon which the attachment was predicated.\nThe evidence as to the partnership was conflicting, and such that we do not feel that we ought to reverse the finding of the court below, holding appellant liable for the debt of W. J. Watson & Co.\nUpon the attachment issue there was no evidence warranting the conclusion of the court and jury thereon.\nAppellant testified directly and positively in denial of the allegations of the attachment writ. The objections made by appellant to certain instructions are, in view of the special findings of the jury, not well taken.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court against the defendant for the sum. of $3,281.60 is affirmed. The finding of the court upon the issue in attachment, and the award of special execution against the property attached, are set aside.\nAppellant will recover judgment in this court for one-half of the amount that his costs exceed those of appellees.\nCounsel for appellants should in all cases precede their argument by a statement of facts, with abundant references, showing at what place in the abstract such facts appear.\njudgment in assumpsit affirmed. Finding in attachment and special execution set aside.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas J. Walsh, attorney for appellant.",
      "Edgar L. Jayne, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Conlan v. Maurice A. Mead et al.\n1. Verdicts\u2014Upon Conflicting Evidence and Not Warranted by the Evidence.\u2014The court holds that the verdict of the jury on conflicting evidence on the question of liability ought not to be disturbed, but that upon the attachment issue there was no evidence warranting the finding of the jury and that it must be set aside.\n2. Briefs\u2014What They Should Contain. \u2014 Counsel for appellants should in all cases precede their argument by a statement of facts, with abundant references, showing at what place in the abstract such facts appear.\nAttachment, against an alleged partnership. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jonas Hutchinson, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nJudgment in assumpsit affirmed.\nFinding in attachment and special execution set aside.\nOpinion filed June 14, 1897.\nThomas J. Walsh, attorney for appellant.\nEdgar L. Jayne, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0318-01",
  "first_page_order": 318,
  "last_page_order": 319
}