{
  "id": 5297793,
  "name": "Henry Carrigan v. Arthur Hardy",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carrigan v. Hardy",
  "decision_date": "1868-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "502",
  "last_page": "503",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 Ill. 502"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1776,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.46163447988245e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5174923325645626
    },
    "sha256": "3c37047b6943654ca9611cc5fb6a8f2f6e71a64910889c1caf0fded8bf542253",
    "simhash": "1:f4eefd216616a5db",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:31:19.364487+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Carrigan v. Arthur Hardy."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Walker\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis record presents no question of law, but simply one as to the weight of evidence. The only difference about which there seems to be a contest is, whether the credit was given to the defendant in error when the services were rendered. On the evidence adduced, the jury found that it was not given . to him. And while the evidence is not clear and conclusive on the question, still it sustains the verdict. It was for the jury to reconcile any conflict in the evidence, and give it such weight as it deserved; nor do we see that they have found so much, if at all, against its \u2019weight, as to require their verdict to be set aside. It is only when the verdict is clearly against the evidence, that this court will reverse for that reason. ' Such is not the case in this record, and the judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Walker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. S. D. Staley, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Messrs. McClernard, Broad well & Springer, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Carrigan v. Arthur Hardy.\n1. New trial\u2014verdict against the evidence. Unless the verdict of the jury is manifestly against the weight of evidence, it will not be disturbed.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Edward T. Rice, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought by Oarrigan against Hardy, to the April term of the Sangamon Circuit Court, 1865, to recover for the board of defendant, alleged to have been given him by the plaintiff. A trial was had before a jury, who found a verdict for the defendant, to reverse which the case is brought to this court by writ of error. The only question presented by the record is, as to whether the credit for defendant\u2019s board was given to him, or to a certain railroad company.\nMr. S. D. Staley, for the plaintiff in error.\nMessrs. McClernard, Broad well & Springer, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0502-01",
  "first_page_order": 502,
  "last_page_order": 503
}