{
  "id": 2660705,
  "name": "Joseph Creote v. William M. Willey",
  "name_abbreviation": "Creote v. Willey",
  "decision_date": "1876-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "444",
  "last_page": "445",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 Ill. 444"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 1666,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6857100800756706e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6982611727556317
    },
    "sha256": "a7f092e2649482b64a372b30faadae30947c1a328bdc6465f0f91a078fac5642",
    "simhash": "1:d124d6b873978d7a",
    "word_count": 287
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:57:03.078268+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Creote v. William M. Willey."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dickey\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of assumpsit, by appellant, against appellee, for money paid out to the use and at request of defendant, and for services in preparing and conducting a suit for defendant, at his request.\nTwo grounds of error are presented: That the court erred in admitting' incompetent evidence; and that the verdict should have been set aside, as against the weight of evidence. But one exception was taken as to admission of evidence. Plaintiff, as witness, was asked, \u201c whether he had not, as a witness in another suit, made a given statement ?\u201d Plaintiff objected to this question; the objection was overruled, and plaintiff excepted. Plaintiff then answered, \u201cI did not so state.\u201d\nIt is difficult to conceive how plaintiff could have been prejudiced by this ruling, even were it erroneous.\nAs to the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial, the testimony was contradictory, and it was the province of the jury to determine the relative weight to be given to each part of it.\nWe find no material error apparent upon the record. The judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dickey"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. James Frake, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. Chester Kinney, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Creote v. William M. Willey.\nNew trial\u2014not granted for error which can not affect the result. Even if a witness is permitted to answer an improper question, yet if it appears that the answer can have done no injury to the party complaining, the ruling of the court in permitting the question to be answered, will not be cause for a new trial.\n' Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nMr. James Frake, for the appellant.\nMr. Chester Kinney, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0444-01",
  "first_page_order": 444,
  "last_page_order": 445
}