{
  "id": 2657439,
  "name": "Frank Maiss, Defendant in Error, v. The Metropolitan Amusement Association, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Maiss v. Metropolitan Amusement Ass'n",
  "decision_date": "1909-01-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,248",
  "first_page": "196",
  "last_page": "199",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 Ill. App. 196"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "11 Mass. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        2053490
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/11/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5268349
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/47/0298-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 4346,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08325871508338903
    },
    "sha256": "f15e574ff569753ae7d56b704a9fb6598f8eb69cacb495fce19eddd9b9f53d90",
    "simhash": "1:9e464cc7ee6eaad8",
    "word_count": 778
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:03:54.613219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Maiss, Defendant in Error, v. The Metropolitan Amusement Association, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff testified that he had bought buggies and was familiar with their value in Chicago. We think the court did not err in permitting him to testify as to the value of his buggy.\nThe Municipal Court Act gives that court jurisdiction in actions of the fourth class in suits at law, \u201cfor the recovery of money only when the amount claimed does not exceed one thousand dollars.\u201d The words \u201cactions for the recovery of money only,\u201d are found in the codes of procedure of many of the states. Section 5130 of the Ohio Code provides that, \u201cissues of fact arising in actions for the recovery of money only,\u201d shall be tried by a jury. Such actions are regarded as legal as distinguished from equitable actions.\nThe only relief sought in an action in tort, as well as in an action for money due and owing, is the recovery of a judgment for money. We think, it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to give the Municipal Court jurisdiction in actions of the fourth class in all legal actions, as distinguished from equitable, when the amount claimed does not exceed $1,000, and not to limit its jurisdiction to actions on contracts or for money due or owing.\nThe defendant in operating its searchlight owed to persons driving on the streets in the vicinity of the light the duty to use reasonable care to avoid using the light in such a manner as would be likely to frighten gentle horses. T., W. & W. R. R. Co. v. Harmon, 47 Ill. 298; C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Dickson, 63 id. 151; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Scheffner, 209 id. 9; Cole v. Fisher, 11 Mass. 137; 1 Shearman & R. on Negligence, 607.\nWhether the beam of light thrown into the eyes of plaintiff\u2019s horse and on the ground in front of the horse in the manner in which it was so thrown in this case was likely to frighten a gentle horse was, we think, a question of fact for the jury.\nWe cannot, on the evidence in this record, say that the judgment is contrary either to the law or the evidence, and the judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blum & Blum, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Frank L. DeLay, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Maiss, Defendant in Error, v. The Metropolitan Amusement Association, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 14,248.\n1. Evidence\u2014who competent to testify to value of buggy. One who has bought buggies and who is familiar with their value in Chicago, is competent to testify to such value in Chicago.\n2. Municipal Covet\u2014extent of jurisdiction. The Municipal Court has jurisdiction in all actions of the fourth class, in all legal actions as distinguished from equitable, when the amount claimed does not exceed $1000, and such jurisdiction is not limited to actions on contracts or for money due and owing.\n3. Torts\u2014duty of one using searchlight. One operating a searchlight owes to persons driving upon streets in the vicinity of such light, the duty to use reasonable care to avoid using the light in such a manner as will be likely to frighten gentle horses.\nTort. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward A. Dicker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term,. 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 8, 1909.\nStatement by the Court. In an action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court for a tort brought by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, defendant in error had judgment for $150, to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted. The defendant operated in its amusement park at Cottage Grove avenue and Sixtieth street an electric searchlight placed on a tower, so constructed and arranged that the beam of light could be made to travel, at the will of the operator, either in a horizontal or vertical path. Plaintiff was driving towards said park in the street next east of Cottage Grove avenue, and when about five blocks from the park the operator in charge of the searchlight caused the beam of light to travel in a zig zag path downward until it flashed in the horse\u2019s eyes, then down to the ground in front of the horse. The light frightened the horse and he ran away, throwing plaintiff out of the buggy and injuring bim and breaking the buggy. Plaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show that the horse was gentle and that plaintiff used care and skill in driving and in attempting to control the horse after he was frightened. Defendant offered no evidence.\nBlum & Blum, for plaintiff in error.\nFrank L. DeLay, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0196-01",
  "first_page_order": 238,
  "last_page_order": 241
}
