{
  "id": 2596004,
  "name": "Francis K. Dunshee, Appellant, v. Harmon Hill, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dunshee v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1858-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "499",
  "last_page": "500",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 Ill. 499"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1639,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.585,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.929295359159149e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37020613943129504
    },
    "sha256": "f79877afc03ecab0608d8689bef0db515cbac0b3916d0ebdeaf7e8cf292fb237",
    "simhash": "1:eaa03ae4ea9a8f4e",
    "word_count": 275
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:40.778931+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Francis K. Dunshee, Appellant, v. Harmon Hill, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Breese, J.\nThe questions in this cause arise out of the instructions given for the plaintiff, and the refusal to give the instructions asked on behalf of the defendant.\nWe have looked carefully into the instructions given and refused, and can perceive no error in the ruling of the court in regard to them.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s instructions place the law of the case, on the facts proved, fairly before the jury. A special contract to deliver the stone was set up, between the defendant, Dunshee, and Pennock, Sterling & Co., which Hill, by arrangement between all the parties, performed. All parties agreeing that Hill should finish the contract, he can sue as on an original undertaking by himself.\nThe evidence in the case fully sustains the finding of the jury.\nThis being the view we entertain of the case, the defendant\u2019s instructions were properly refused. The judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Breese, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lathrop & Brown, for Appellant.",
      "L. F. Warner, for Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Francis K. Dunshee, Appellant, v. Harmon Hill, Appellee.\nAPPEAL FROM WINNEBAGO COUNTY COURT.\nWhere the evidence is sufficient to warrant the finding of the jury, and the instructions fairly state the law of the case, the judgment will he affirmed.\nWhere a special contract to deliver stone is entered into between two parties, and they agree that a third party may perform the contract, that third party may sue as on an original undertaking.\nThis suit was commenced before a justice of the peace in Winnebago county, and taken by appeal to the County Court, where it was tried before Miller, Judge, and a jury.\nThe decision does not require a further statement of the case.\nLathrop & Brown, for Appellant.\nL. F. Warner, for Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0499-01",
  "first_page_order": 501,
  "last_page_order": 502
}