{
  "id": 5297920,
  "name": "James F. Carroll v. Abraham McNeill",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carroll v. McNeill",
  "decision_date": "1901-09-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "239",
  "last_page": "240",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "97 Ill. App. 239"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1838,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "sha256": "5e606440c25338c8f6e2a8b78ba8cb16365b0a49013d4c781aac19e3ced659f8",
    "simhash": "1:e968253ab8338ac4",
    "word_count": 297
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:10:34.341512+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James F. Carroll v. Abraham McNeill."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Worthington\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action in assumpsit brought March 9, 1900, to recover from appellant money paid by appellee as his surety, on two promissory notes, one for $1,000, to Hoiles & Son, dated May 10, 1884, and due six months after date, with interest at eight per cent after maturity, and one for $2,083.51 to Wm. G-. Bartle & Co., dated June 1, 1886, and due the following September 12th, with eight per cent from maturity.\nYerdict and judgment for appellee for $5,000.\nAppellant pleaded the statute of limitations and appellee replied alleging new promise to pay.\nThese pleadings present the only material issue in the case.\nAppellee testifies to the new promise to pay, and appellant denies it. The jurors heard both parties and found for appellee.\nUnder decisions of the Supreme and Appellate Courts, too numerous to be cited, such finding is conclusive upon this court. It is urged by appellant that the testimony of appellee is not sufficiently definite as to the indebtedness which he testifies appellant promised to pay.\nFrom an examination of the evidence, we have no doubt that if the promise was made, as testified to by appellee, it was made by appellant referring to this indebtedness, and no other. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Worthington"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O\u2019Donnell & Brady, John B. Brady, Charles W\u201e Thomas and Fritz & Hoiles, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Dawdy, VanIIoorebeke & Louden, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James F. Carroll v. Abraham McNeill.\n1. Verdicts \u2014 Upon Conflicting Evidence Conclusive upon the Appellate Court. \u2014 A verdict upon, conflicting evidence is conclusive upon this court.\nAssumpsit, for money paid as surety. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Bond County; the Hon. William Harztell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1901.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 4, 1901.\nO\u2019Donnell & Brady, John B. Brady, Charles W\u201e Thomas and Fritz & Hoiles, attorneys for appellant.\nDawdy, VanIIoorebeke & Louden, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0239-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 266
}