{
  "id": 2652262,
  "name": "Taylor Dodd, Appellant, v. Fruit Growers Refrigerating & Power Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dodd v. Fruit Growers Refrigerating & Power Co.",
  "decision_date": "1908-09-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "152",
  "last_page": "154",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 Ill. App. 152"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 311,
    "char_count": 4723,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "sha256": "99eac92f593fc56a946dbc0a1963a24955003e014911a53dba8c49b6029dff4e",
    "simhash": "1:613f61b6ae8aa9ff",
    "word_count": 780
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:17.407031+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Taylor Dodd, Appellant, v. Fruit Growers Refrigerating & Power Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a suit in case, in the Circuit Court of Union county, hy appellant against appellee, to recover damages to abutting property, alleged to have been caused by appellant in the construction of its car and electric light lines, upon a public street, in front of appellant\u2019s residence property, in the city of Anna. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment in favor of appellee.\nThe declaration charges that appellee so negligently constructed its car line and track upon the public street, along and in front of appellant\u2019s premises, as to destroy his \u201cingress and egress to and upon the street;\u201d and that in erecting its electric light poles and stringing its wires, appellee negligently and unnecessarily injured certain shade and ornamental trees which appellant\u2019s predecessor in title and appellant had planted and grown upon the public street, upon which his premises abutted.\nMany questions are suggested and urged in this ease that are,in no manner involved in the record. In each count of the declaration appellant bases his action on the ground of negligence in construction, and bases the measure of his damages upon depreciation of market value of his premises. In addition to their general verdict finding the defendant not guilty, the jury returned therewith a special finding to the effect that appellant\u2019s premises had'not depreciated in market value. This appears from a special interrogatory submitted to the jury and their answers thereto as follows: \u201cWas' plaintiff\u2019s property at the time of completion of the improvement in question, in the fair cash market value thereof, worth as much or more than it was immediately before said work was begun?\u201d Answer, \u201cTes.\u201d\nWhile there was conflict and contrariety of evidence both as to the questions of negligent construction and unnecessary injury, and depreciation of market value, still, the state of the evidence was such as to fully warrant the jury in its findings. Appellant clearly failed to prove either branch of his case by a preponderance of the evidence. The case was tried upon the theory of the law presented by appellant\u2019s declaration, and appellant failed for lack of a preponderance of the evidence bearing upon the two controlling questions.\nIn addition to the special interrogatory and answer above quoted, two others appear to have been returned by the jury, and appellant claims that they are inconsistent with the general verdict, and that the court erred in not rendering judgment-in his favor on these special findings. These interrogatories are not responsive to any proper issue in the case and are, therefore, not inconsistent with either the general verdict or the special finding above quoted; and further, this question was not raised in the trial court, by motion for judgment on the special findings, nor in appellant\u2019s motion for new trial, nor in any other manner.\nCounsel state that the court erred in refusing to admit \u201cthe evidence offered under the sixth error assigned.\u201d The sixth error assigned is: \u201cThe court erred in refusing the evidence offered by the plaintiff to show and for what purpose the petitions and waivers of damages were obtained.\u201d This alleged offered evidence is nowhere pointed out to tis either in the brief or argument. The question is, therefore, not so presented as to call for discussion; we may however say, that from what does appear we see no error in the court\u2019s ruling.\nCertain objections are made to a number of instructions given on behalf of appellee. We do not find any such error in the rulings of the court with respect to the instructions as would warrant a reversal of the judgment. This is one of that class of cases in which slight errors will not reverse, a case where upon the whole evidence substantial justice has been done by the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the trial court.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. D. Lyerle and Taylor Dodd, for appellant.",
      "A. Nby Sessions, James Lingle and P. E. Hileman, for -appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Taylor Dodd, Appellant, v. Fruit Growers Refrigerating & Power Company, Appellee.\n1. Verdict\u2014when special findings not consistent. Special findings which are not responsive to any proper issue in the cause will not affect the general verdict as being inconsistent therewith.\n2. Appeals akd ebbobs\u2014what question not considered upon review. Rulings complained of hut not pointed out hy abstract or brief will not be considered.\nAction in case. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Union county; the Hon. William N. Btjtleb, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in- this court at the February- term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 12, 1908.\nRehearing denied February 25, 1909.\nW. D. Lyerle and Taylor Dodd, for appellant.\nA. Nby Sessions, James Lingle and P. E. Hileman, for -appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0152-01",
  "first_page_order": 170,
  "last_page_order": 172
}