{
  "id": 5222608,
  "name": "John Brown v. Frank D. Richardson and E. Richardson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Richardson",
  "decision_date": "1898-08-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "436",
  "last_page": "437",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 Ill. App. 436"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "172 Ill. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3173324
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/172/0227-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1496,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.591,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15660739294066953
    },
    "sha256": "1cb0808987890a48d0ab8e7756b046fc2139fec2218f7310f5dc848562583a1c",
    "simhash": "1:510b711af2cdd779",
    "word_count": 246
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:43.320990+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Brown v. Frank D. Richardson and E. Richardson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hr. Justice Worthington\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis action was brought to foreclose a mortgage securing a promissory note for $500. Defendants in error claim that the note is paid. Plaintiff in error denies payment. This is the only issue in the case. The testimony is squarely conflicting. It would serve no useful purpose to review or analyze it. There is abundant evidence to sustain the finding of the chancellor that the note has been paid if the witnesses who testified to its payment told the truth. He saw and heard them, and for this reason was better qualified to pass upon their testimony than we are. Findings of facts by the chancellor upon oral evidence will not be disturbed unless clearly against the preponderance of evidence. Burgett et al. v. Osborne et al., 172 Ill. 227.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hr. Justice Worthington"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gibson & Johnson, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "Fithian, Davidson & Kasserman, T. J. Fithian and I. D. Shamhart, attorneys for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Brown v. Frank D. Richardson and E. Richardson.\n1. Findings\u2014On Conflicting Evidence.\u2014Findings of fact by the judge Of the trial court sitting as a chancellor, upon oral evidence, will not be disturbed unless clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.\nMortgage Foreclosure.\u2014Trial in the Circuit Court of Jasper County; the Hon. Silas Z. Landes, Judge, presiding. Hearing and decree for defendant. Error by complainant.\nHeard in this court at the February term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed August 31, 1898.\nGibson & Johnson, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nFithian, Davidson & Kasserman, T. J. Fithian and I. D. Shamhart, attorneys for defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0436-01",
  "first_page_order": 438,
  "last_page_order": 439
}
