{
  "id": 2593282,
  "name": "Joshua Dickerson, Appellant, v. Truelove Sparks, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dickerson v. Sparks",
  "decision_date": "1855-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "178",
  "last_page": "179",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 Ill. 178"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 2094,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.582,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.970815101148924e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42212712015256487
    },
    "sha256": "516c0735c8b600cb482de078390af1b2316b5c39e933ad92042d74016f4934c9",
    "simhash": "1:4f13f6e4be4abe3c",
    "word_count": 352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:18.872749+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joshua Dickerson, Appellant, v. Truelove Sparks, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Skinneb, J.\nAssumpsit by Sparks against Dickerson, to recover for corn sold and delivered.\nThe defendant below asked for the following instruction, which the court refused to give: \u201c That before the plaintiff can recover in this case on a contract for sale and delivery of corn, he must prove clearly and specifically by competent evidence the quantity of corn, and that the statement of plaintiff\u2019s witness, that his father had exhibited a memorandum book of the quantity of corn, is not such evidence.\u201d\nThe court properly refused the instruction. The plaintiff had proved the sale and delivery of corn by him to the defendant, but the precise quantity so delivered, did not from the evidence with certainty appear. It was for the jury from the evidence to determine as to the quantity, and it was not necessary to a recovery, that the plaintiff should prove the exact quantity of corn delivered.\nIt would be equivalent to a denial of justice in suits arising out of transactions of daily occurrence, to lay down such a rule. The language of the instruction, \u201c clearly and specifically, and by competent evidence,\u201d is objectionable and well calculated to deceive and mislead a jury, and should upon that ground have been refused.\nThe competency of the evidence was for the court, and the jury were to determine the questions of fact submitted to them from the evidence, and according to its weight and preponderance.\nThis is the only question presented by the record for decision of this court.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Skinneb, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. A. Smith, for Appellant.",
      "J. M. Palmer, for Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joshua Dickerson, Appellant, v. Truelove Sparks, Appellee.\nAPPEAL EROM MACOUPIN.\nIn an action for corn sold and delivered, it is lor the jury to determine from the evidence the quantity sold, and the plaintiff need not necessarily prove the exact quantity delivered.\nThe competency of evidence is for the court to decide, and the jury will pass upon \u2019it according to its weight and preponderance when it has been submitted to them. .\nThe only question submitted to the court by this record, is fully stated in the opinion.\nD. A. Smith, for Appellant.\nJ. M. Palmer, for Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0178-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 175
}