{
  "id": 5313907,
  "name": "John W. Patrick v. Robert Jack, Admr.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Patrick v. Jack",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "81",
  "last_page": "82",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "82 Ill. 81"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2359,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2051570916834223e-07,
      "percentile": 0.594639494426123
    },
    "sha256": "90719629f6311e420ea2d4319941dc055e056779e6dbd867d9abe8a48ac93407",
    "simhash": "1:b1ad28d678271ac5",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:45.985227+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John W. Patrick v. Robert Jack, Admr."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nOn the trial before the justice of the peace, plaintiff, as administrator, recovered a judgment for \u00a720, from which defendant prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court. A trial de novo was had in the latter court, when defendant recovered a judgment for \u00a71.07 against plaintiff, to be paid in due course of administration.\nThe controversy has relation to mutual accounts between defendant and plaintiff\u2019s intestate. The court before whom the trial was had examined the books kept by defendant and decedent, and found a small balance due defendant, and with that conclusion we see no reason to be dissatisfied.\nWhile the evidence as to the books kept by decedent is not, perhaps, as full as the statute, if construed strictly, would seem to require, we think the proof is sufficient to warrant the action of the court in admitting them in evidence. It is shown they were the books of decedent, and the \u2018\u25a0'\u2022\u2022only boohs \u201d kept by him. That is equivalent to proof they were books of \u201c original entry.\u201d Evidence they were the \u201c only books \u201d kept by deceased in his business, is sufficient proof of that fact. Any other conclusion would be an absurdity. It is also proven settlements had been made by them with numerous persons, and the books had been found correct. That is the substance of what the statute requires to make the books competent evidence.\nBut, in addition to all this proof, it further appears, when the books were shown to defendant by plaintiff, before any contention arose between the parties, he made no objection to them. When all the testimony is considered together, it is sufficient to justify the action of the court in admitting the books in evidence.\nHo material error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. John B. Kagy, for the appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John W. Patrick v. Robert Jack, Admr.\nEvidence\u2014account booJcs. Evidence that the account hooks of a deceased person were the only hooks kept hy him, is equivalent to proof that they are books of original entry; and where it is further proved that settlements had been made by them with others, and they had been found correct, this is a substantial compliance with the statute, and they are admissible in evidence.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. Amos Watts, Judge, presiding.\nMr. John B. Kagy, for the appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0081-01",
  "first_page_order": 87,
  "last_page_order": 88
}