{
  "id": 5223884,
  "name": "Amos Hart v. Thomas Wing",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hart v. Wing",
  "decision_date": "1867-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "141",
  "last_page": "142",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 Ill. 141"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "20 Ill. 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2595765
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/20/0443-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1786,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2104630561171605e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7764385105077555
    },
    "sha256": "645b4045c14422a657add64560ac3d909bdb95b7d0cbf72f5bf3dc4797d9f0bf",
    "simhash": "1:ae6fd23f6f0924a9",
    "word_count": 311
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:39.430081+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Amos Hart v. Thomas Wing."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nIt appears by the testimony in this record that a portion of the corn in controversy was bought by Mbit with Wing\u2019s money, and Wing, therefore, had an equitable right to be protected as a creditor, and to be preferred by Mott over other creditors not so situated. Mott was in insolvent circumstances, and parties were engaged in removing this corn when he transferred it to Wing. The bonafides of the transaction was fairly submitted to the jury on the evidence and on the instructions, and they have found it was not a fraudulent transaction, and we perceive no grounds to doubt their conclusion or to justify an interference with their verdict.\nUpon the question of delivery of the corn, it appears it was in cribs, in the ear, and was susceptible of no other delivery than that which was made and accepted. Such possession of it was given to Wing as its nature admitted. An actual removal of the entire mass of corn in the' crib, or of any other cumbrous article, is not necessary to constitute a delivery and change of possession. May v. Tallman, 20 Ill. 443.\nThe judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Fleming, Pillsbury & Plumb, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. A. E. Harding, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Amos Hart v. Thomas Wing.\n1. Fraud\u2014jury to judge whether transaction fraudulent. The court will not disturb the verdict of a jury upon the bona fides of a transaction properly submitted thereto.\n2. Sale\u2014delivery of property sold. Upon a sale of personal property no other delivery is necessary than such as the article sold is susceptible of.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. Charles E. Starr, Judge, presiding.\nThe case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.\nMessrs. Fleming, Pillsbury & Plumb, for the plaintiff in error.\nMr. A. E. Harding, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0141-01",
  "first_page_order": 141,
  "last_page_order": 142
}