{
  "id": 2612944,
  "name": "William B. Cass et al. v. Alonzo Campbell",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cass v. Campbell",
  "decision_date": "1872-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "259",
  "last_page": "260",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ill. 259"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1755,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.519644393192664e-08,
      "percentile": 0.487054071492199
    },
    "sha256": "cced9e29c448539b2108a96c1af475dba0a3440a3016d39aee3540bd1fd205ee",
    "simhash": "1:e4bb15f11eac2f0a",
    "word_count": 309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:30:19.405961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William B. Cass et al. v. Alonzo Campbell."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of replevin for forty-two head of cattle, in which, among others, was the plea of property in the defendant.\nIt was contended, upon one side, that the'sale of the cattle was conditional, and upon the other, that it was an absolute sale.\nMuch and contradictory and conflicting testimony was heard on this point, and the jury found for the defendant.\nIn cases so situated, the court is not at liberty to set aside a verdict. It is impossible to say on which side it preponderates, and the jury, judging of it with better lights than we can have, have been influenced by it in a direction which we can not say was the wrong direction, and can not disturb their finding.\nIt is further complained by plaintiffs in error that the court refused to give certain instructions asked by them.\nIn looking at the mass of instructions asked, we find that all the important matter to be found in the refused instructions was contained in those given, and it was no error in the court to refuse to repeat them.\nPerceiving no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. James Steele, Judge, presiding.",
      "Mr. B. W. Hanford, for the plaintiffs in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William B. Cass et al. v. Alonzo Campbell.\n1. New trial\u2014;finding of jury. Where the evidence is contradictory and conflicting as to whether a sale of cattle was conditional or absolute, so that it is impossible to say on which side it preponderates, this court will not disturb the finding of the jury.\n3. Instructions\u2014repeating. Where the instructions given contain all the important matter in those refused, there will be no error in refusing to repeat them.\nWrit of Error to the Circuit Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. James Steele, Judge, presiding.\nMr. B. W. Hanford, for the plaintiffs in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0259-01",
  "first_page_order": 261,
  "last_page_order": 262
}