{
  "id": 5268920,
  "name": "Frank W. Pettit v. Lillian R. Noll",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pettit v. Noll",
  "decision_date": "1900-01-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "646",
  "last_page": "647",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 Ill. App. 646"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1731,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "sha256": "e3740857788f48e14425f0bd1f21e66b24fc463394e4bd7a7601c0099c1e828a",
    "simhash": "1:19591ba200ed409b",
    "word_count": 289
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:28:30.258939+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank W. Pettit v. Lillian R. Noll."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis suit was brought by appellee to recover from appellant the sum of \u00a758.37 alleged to be due as commissions on work secured for appellant by appellee. The jury returned a verdict for that amount and the court overruled a motion for a new trial and entered judgment on said verdict. This appeal is prosecuted to reverse that judgment.\nThere is no appearance in this court by appellee. We have read \u201cthe abstract of record as well as the brief and argument for appellant. The verdict seems not only unsupported by the testimony, but to be in direct opposition to the weight of evidence. On behalf of appellee there is no witness except herself. Her testimony upon questions essential to be proven, if said verdict is to be sustained, and which she must prove by a preponderance of testimony, is positively denied by appellant, and his version is corroborated by another witness. While the burden of proof is upon the appellee, the preponderance of evidence is clearly with the appellant.\nThere does not appear to be any necessity for incumbering the records with a detailed review of the testimony.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Flower, Smith & Musgrave, attorneys for appellant.",
      "No appearance by appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank W. Pettit v. Lillian R. Noll.\n1. Verdicts\u2014 Unsupported by Evidence.\u2014A judgment founded, upon a verdict unsupported by testimony, and in direct opposition to the weight of the evidence, must be reversed.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Samuel C. STOTOH, judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1899.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 30, 1900.\nFlower, Smith & Musgrave, attorneys for appellant.\nNo appearance by appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0646-01",
  "first_page_order": 654,
  "last_page_order": 655
}
