{
  "id": 5255468,
  "name": "George S. Steere v. H. Alexander Stewart",
  "name_abbreviation": "Steere v. Stewart",
  "decision_date": "1899-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "343",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "82 Ill. App. 343"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2253,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "sha256": "7e8f59c85262e6458736f065eae9bc8c98f0d9824266a235e3424fe48e71615a",
    "simhash": "1:d430c460faaa0e40",
    "word_count": 377
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:39:38.340689+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George S. Steere v. H. Alexander Stewart."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sears\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant complains of rulings of the court below in admission and exclusion of evidence, and in refusing certain instructions tendered by appellant. It is also complained that the verdict is excessive in amount.\nThe evidence as to the usual and customary fees of physicians for like services was sufficient. The evidence first presented in this behalf was in response to questions as to \u201c reasonable\u201d or \u201c fair\u201d charges. But appellee in his later testimony stated that \u201c the usual charge in cases of this kind for a visit is $5\u201d and \u201c I am giving $100 as an average charge for a surgeon.\u201d\nIt is objected that answers were excluded to questions put ,to Dr. Bidlon as to the probable effect upon the patient, of such treatment as was followed by appellee. But there was no prejudice resulting from such exclusion, for afterward Dr. Ridlon was permitted to testify, \u201c the treatmen t described by Dr. Stewart would have no effect upon the real cause of the difficulty.\u201d\n\u25a0 Without going into needless discussion of the instructions, it is sufficient to say that we find no error iq the rulings of the court in that behalf.\nThe evid\u00e9nc\u00e9 was conflicting as to the value of the services rendered by appellee.\nWe can not say that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sears"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. W. \"Wakelee, attorney for appellant.",
      "Sumner C. Palmer, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George S. Steere v. H. Alexander Stewart.\n1. Harmless Error\u2014Exclusion of Evidence.\u2014Where there is no prejudice resulting from the exclusion of evidence, the verdict must be sustained.\nAssumpsit, for physician\u2019s services. Trial in the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jonas Hutchinson, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. Heard in this court at the October term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 17, 1899.\nStatement of the Case.\u2014This was an action in assumpsit by appellee, who is a physician, to recover for professional services rendered at the request of appellant and upon his promise to pay therefor. There was a conflict in . the evidence as to the value of the services rendered by appellee. The trial below resulted in verdict and judgment for appellee in the amount of $89.\nH. W. \"Wakelee, attorney for appellant.\nSumner C. Palmer, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0343-01",
  "first_page_order": 341,
  "last_page_order": 342
}
