{
  "id": 2605815,
  "name": "John C. Crabtree v. James N. Reed",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crabtree v. Reed",
  "decision_date": "1869-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "206",
  "last_page": "207",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ill. 206"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1932,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.872984619733304e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9645386661538955
    },
    "sha256": "bb3ad6bd1c72bfbc9ed069636d81a1f2ee764b894ed13dfc6e31185fe3b377ab",
    "simhash": "1:2a1dd9ec9a3305d2",
    "word_count": 334
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:50:26.600758+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John C. Crabtree v. James N. Reed."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe only question between the parties to this record was, as to the value of a mule the appellee acknowledged he had struck with a heavy stick, and which belonged to the appellant, causing its death.\nThe action was case, for killing the mule, and the court, on behalf of defendant, instructed the jury that the burden of proof rested upon the plaintiff, and that he was hound to maintain, by a clear preponderance of evidence, the allegations in the declaration, and that unless they find such a preponderance, they will find for the defendant. Though the defendant had admitted he struck the mule in disciplining him, he not having been broke to work, and that from the blow the mule died, he contested the fact of killing before the jury, and under the above instruction, the jury found for him.\nThis instruction must certainly have misled the jury. The law is not, in such a case, that there shall be a clear preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff to entitle him to recover. It is sufficient, if the evidence creates probabilities in his favor\u2014that the weight of the evidence inclines to his side.\nFor this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Morrison & Epler, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Ketcham & Atkins, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John C. Crabtree v. James N. Reed.\nEvidence\u2014of the degree of preponderance required. In an action on the case, herein i* is sought to recover damages for the killing of a mule belonging to tiie plaintiff, it is not necessary that there shall be a \u201c clear preponderance\u201d of evidence in favor of the plaintiff to entitle him to recover. It is sufficient if the evidence creates probabilities in his favor\u2014that the weight of the evidence inclines to his side.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. Charles D. Hodges, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion states the case.\nMessrs. Morrison & Epler, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Ketcham & Atkins, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0206-01",
  "first_page_order": 206,
  "last_page_order": 207
}