{
  "id": 5790087,
  "name": "Abraham Harris v. Isaac Harris",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harris v. Harris",
  "decision_date": "1898-12-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "288",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 Ill. App. 288"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "63 Me. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Me.",
      "case_ids": [
        592826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/me/63/0228-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. 208",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        428270
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/38/0208-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 84,
    "char_count": 636,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.582,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17037769383465987
    },
    "sha256": "164828e7b2e46a9e28be17db01e628f9c8e633b44ee2abe9fbf218a331352fb3",
    "simhash": "1:3b762503b4e99a6a",
    "word_count": 113
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:44.895596+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Abraham Harris v. Isaac Harris."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": ".Reference is made to Underwood v. Hosack, 38 Ill. 208; Daniel on Negotiable lusts., Vol. 1, Sec. 185; Parsons on Notes and Bills, Vol. 1, Chap. VI, 2d Ed., p. 195; Thompson v. Gray, 63 Me. 228.\nJohn B. Brady, attorney for appellant.\nSamuels & Seligman, attorneys for appellee.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John B. Brady, attorney for appellant.",
      "Samuels & Seligman, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Abraham Harris v. Isaac Harris.\nAppeal from, the Superior Court of Cook County.\nThis case holds that a note given by a son at his father\u2019s request, for the father\u2019s existing debt, and made payable at a future day, is not void for want of consideration, and operated as a suspension of the right of appellee to enforce payment of the debt against the father."
  },
  "file_name": "0288-01",
  "first_page_order": 298,
  "last_page_order": 299
}