{
  "id": 5320133,
  "name": "International Forwarding Company, Defendant in Error, v. C. R. Horrie, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "International Forwarding Co. v. Horrie",
  "decision_date": "1910-11-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,357",
  "first_page": "383",
  "last_page": "385",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "158 Ill. App. 383"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "77 Ill. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        821705
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/77/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5205842
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/69/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 Ill. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3352239
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/218/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 Ill. 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3174134
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/172/0582-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill. App. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2551530
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/112/0458-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 4278,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15787638584334454
    },
    "sha256": "2a1241a6ad79c16dadb2a1fdd04c14d5eeec5eb533ee7165c16ddb30de6ede1a",
    "simhash": "1:372aa5023bdcfdc2",
    "word_count": 732
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:33.981040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "International Forwarding Company, Defendant in Error, v. C. R. Horrie, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s claim in this case is stated to be for services rendered and money advanced for defendant\u2019s use. The amount claimed is $10.15. The defendant in open court tendered in payment the sum of $7.75, which was paid into court. The trial court gave judgment in plaintiff\u2019s favor for the full amount of the plaintiff\u2019s claim. The defendant asks us to reverse that judgment, the difference between the amount claimed by plaintiff and for which it has judgment and the amount which defendant asserts is due, being $2.40.\nThe defendant\u2019s contention is that against his wishes a party in Spain from which he purchased seventeen gallons of sherry, at a cost of $5.95, forwarded it by the plaintiff. The latter\u2019s bill, including freight from Cadiz, Spain, to Chicago, \u201cI. T. entry fee,\u201d customhouse blanks and marine insurance, together with \u201cfees for services in connection with the above transportation\u201d of $2.79, make up the plaintiff\u2019s bill of $10.15, for which it brought this suit.\nThe defendant\u2019s reasons for asking us to reverse the judgment are that under the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the extra $2.40 over and above the amount tendered, that the trial judge erred in examining the witnesses himself, and that \u201cthe remarks of the judge in the presence of the jury concerning the effect of the evidence and his intimations as to the facts in the case, constituted reversible error. \u201d As to the first of these contentions the jury did not agree with defendant\u2019s views that the $2.79 for plaintiff\u2019s fees was an overcharge. It must suffice to say that there is evidence tending to show that the usual charge for such services is from $2.50 to $3 on such shipment. The charge could scarcely be deemed excessive, even under defendant\u2019s evidence, and we should not be expected to review evidence in detail in support of this conclusion in a case such as this.*\nThat in examining the witnesses himself to the extent shown in this cause and in certain .remarks which the record shows the trial court indulged in, there was an overstepping of the province of the presiding judge, may we think be conceded. It is true, as said in Consolidated Coal Co. v. Sheperd, 112 Ill. App. 458, that \u201ctestimony elicited by an improper question from the court is more effective to impress and mislead a jury than when in response to questions by counsel.\u201d The subject is considered in Dunn v. The People, 172 Ill. 582-595, in O\u2019Shea v. The People, 218 Ill. 352-360, to which reference may be had, and in quite a number of other cases.\nUpon the third contention, it is true as said by Justice Gary in Kane v. Kinnare, 69 Ill. App. 81-83, \u201cMany judgments have been reversed in this state because the judge talked too much. The cases may be readily found by consulting the digests.\u201d As said in Andreas v. Ketcham, 77 Ill. 377: \u201cWe are aware of no rule of law or practice that would allow the presiding judge to give to the jury his opinion on a controverted question of fact.\u201d In this case however it is clear that no substantial injustice has been done. It would be inexcusable for obvious reasons to encourage appeals in cases of this character. The amount involved is absurdly small in comparison with the expense incurred in prosecuting the appeal, and no principle of importance is involved.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John A. Swanson, for plaintiff in error; Aaron Heims, of counsel.",
      "Albert H. Fry, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "International Forwarding Company, Defendant in Error, v. C. R. Horrie, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 15,357.\n1. Trial\u2014what conduct of court improper. It is improper for the court extensively to examine upon direct the witnesses produced by a party and such conduct if prejudicial is ground for reversal.\n2. Trial\u2014when remarks of judge will not reverse. Notwithstanding the trial court may have exceeded his province in expressing his opinions in the presence of the jury, a reversal will not he ordered if no substantial injustice appears to have been done.\nAssumpsit. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frank Crowe, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 10, 1910.\nJohn A. Swanson, for plaintiff in error; Aaron Heims, of counsel.\nAlbert H. Fry, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0383-01",
  "first_page_order": 401,
  "last_page_order": 403
}