{
  "id": 5228000,
  "name": "The Union Hide and Leather Company v. Benjamin Shoenmann et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Union Hide & Leather Co. v. Shoenmann",
  "decision_date": "1868-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "74",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "48 Ill. 74"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 138,
    "char_count": 1495,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.568505132844278e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4022792448517269
    },
    "sha256": "69696a3f4963699a5a8b4545412e826bafdf789c5e88e823751990b5a169c1d5",
    "simhash": "1:2ef751dd5e928e59",
    "word_count": 249
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:01.886689+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Union Hide and Leather Company v. Benjamin Shoenmann et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis is a controversy about a lot of hides sold by appellees to appellants, and turns on the question of a warranty as to quality.\nOn this point the evidence is somewhat conflicting, and we cannot disturb the finding of the court. It is very evident there was a sufficient quantity of hides to answer a warranty, had there been one, piled up in plaintiffs\u2019 warehouse, from which defendants made, themselves, the selection, without any interference by the plaintiffs, and if they failed to get the best of the lot, it was their misfortune.\nWe can perceive no error in the record. The judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Gookins & Roberts, for the appellants.",
      "Messrs. Rosenthal & Pence, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Union Hide and Leather Company v. Benjamin Shoenmann et al.\n1. New trial\u2014verdict against tJie evidence. This court will not disturb the finding of the circuit court, the evidence being conflicting, and substantial justice appearing to have been done.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Gaby, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought in the court below by the appellees against the appellants, to recover the price of four hundred and forty-seven dry hides, sold under an alleged special contract. The cause was tried by the court, a jury being waived, and a finding and judgment for $120.95 for the plaintiff had, whereupon the defendants appealed to this court.\nMessrs. Gookins & Roberts, for the appellants.\nMessrs. Rosenthal & Pence, for the appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0074-01",
  "first_page_order": 76,
  "last_page_order": 77
}