{
  "id": 5274321,
  "name": "William B. Russell v. Edwin S. Russell et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Russell v. Russell",
  "decision_date": "1870-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "250",
  "last_page": "251",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. 250"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1585,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "sha256": "7028a5faa27f6bfc375539b12bd026071638ee3ad0a20b5b964ad5810e9988ec",
    "simhash": "1:88f5ce91366de685",
    "word_count": 274
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:59.947609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William B. Russell v. Edwin S. Russell et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was a bill in chancery, in the Wabash circuit court, exhibited by Edwin S. Russell and Charles B. Russell, against William B. Russell, to settle a partnership. An answer of defendant, under oath, was required, and he put in a full answer to all the allegations of the bill of complaint. By this answer, which was responsive to the allegations of the bill, a balance was alleged to be due defendant. No testimony appears in the record to overcome the answer, and it must be regarded as true.\nOn what ground the court could have found in favor of complainant, and rendered a decree against the defendant for $1700, we are at a loss to perceive. On well established principles, a sworn answer, not overcome by what is equivalent to the testimony of two witnesses, must prevail. It is evidence for the defendant, and, being uncontradicted, the decree should have been in his favor.\nThe decree is reversed and the cause remanded.\nDecree reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. T. S. Casey, Mr. S. Z. Landes, and Mr. Charles H. Patton, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "Messrs. Bell & Green, for the defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William B. Russell v. Edwin S. Russell et al.\nChahceky\u2014sworn answer, uncontradicted. An answer in chancery, under oath, not overcome by what is equivalent to the testimony of two witnesses, must prevail, and, being responsive to the allegations in the bill, Will entitle the defendant to a decree.\nWrit op Error to the Circuit Court of Wabash county; the Hon. James M. Pollock, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion contains a statement of the case.\nMr. T. S. Casey, Mr. S. Z. Landes, and Mr. Charles H. Patton, for the plaintiff in error.\nMessrs. Bell & Green, for the defendants in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0250-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 251
}