{
  "id": 2650919,
  "name": "Oliver C. White, Appellee, v. St. Louis Transfer Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. St. Louis Transfer Co.",
  "decision_date": "1909-03-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "160",
  "last_page": "161",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 Ill. App. 160"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "101 Ill. App. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2598349
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/101/0040-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2211,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47118133142125274
    },
    "sha256": "4c7caa7fa4b0c2724dda43bd48b5bddd7cfbe752980d2b3f41bf9c5efcce4abc",
    "simhash": "1:4a4622c3eade06f1",
    "word_count": 383
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:17.407031+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Oliver C. White, Appellee, v. St. Louis Transfer Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Justice Cbeighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action in case, in the City Court of East St. Louis, by appellee against appellant, to recover f o\u00edan injury to his person while engaged in the service of appellant as a driver of one of its transfer wagons. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $650.\nThe declaration charges that appellant furnished to appellee, for him to use, a wagon with a defective, worn and unsafe doubletree; that appellant knew of this condition or by the exercise of ordinary diligence would have known; that appellee did not know and could not have known by the exercise of ordinary diligence; and that by reason of the alleged condition of the doubletree, while in the exercise of due care and caution appellee was injured.\nThe testimony of the witnesses pro and con is contradictory and conflicting. The doubletree was procured and offered in evidence, was duly certified to this court for inspection, and we have inspected it, in the light of all the evidence. And while we cannot say that there is no evidence in this record tending to prove all the material requisites of appellee\u2019s case, still, in our opinion, the state of the evidence is snch as to make it. our duty to reverse the judgment and remand the cause under the rule laid down by this court in St. Louis National Stock Yards v. Godfrey, 101 Ill. App. 40 (48).\nComplaint is made of the giving and refusing to give certain instructions, but we think, when all the instructions are read and considered together, they present the law applicable to the issues and evidence with substantial accuracy.\nThe judgment of the City Court of East St. Louis is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Justice Cbeighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wise, McNulty & Keefe, for appellant.",
      "F. C. Smith, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Oliver C. White, Appellee, v. St. Louis Transfer Company, Appellant.\nVebdict\u2014when set aside. A verdict manifestly against the weight of the evidence will he set aside on review.\nAction in case for personal injuries. Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. W. J. N. Motees, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1908.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 4, 1909.\nWise, McNulty & Keefe, for appellant.\nF. C. Smith, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0160-01",
  "first_page_order": 178,
  "last_page_order": 179
}