{
  "id": 8500045,
  "name": "Nonotuck Silk Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Adams Express Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co.",
  "decision_date": "1911-12-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,148",
  "first_page": "525",
  "last_page": "526",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "166 Ill. App. 525"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1550,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "sha256": "19cad9437c4afb286d2ddd9266dc34ca3d822d0763da2b8a9cee6741268c44cb",
    "simhash": "1:5f7d8c4d44318e9c",
    "word_count": 263
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:11.617746+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mr. PresidiNg Justice Baldwin took no part in the decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Nonotuck Silk Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Adams Express Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff in error purchased a bill of goods from A. D. Juilliard & Company of New York, and ordered them to be shipped by express, without specifying the name of the company. The goods were delivered to the defendant in error and by it lost in transit. Their undisputed value was $490.12, which amount was paid by the Nonotuck Silk Company to Juilliard'& Company.\nThe case was tried upon a stipulation of facts and a deposition exactly the same as that in ease No. 16147 between the same parties, excepting as to the description of the goods and their value. (Ante, p. 519.)\nFor the reasons stated in the opinion filed this day in the case last mentioned, the judgment must- be reversed and a judgment entered here in favor'of the plaintiff in error, Nonotuck Silk Company, and against the defendant in error, Adams Express Company, for $490.12.\nJudgment reversed and judgment entered here.\nMr. PresidiNg Justice Baldwin took no part in the decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brode B. Davis, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Charles B. Elder, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nonotuck Silk Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Adams Express Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 16,148.\nThis ease is controlled by the decision in Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Adams Express Co., ante, p. 519.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John H. Hume, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1910.\nReversed and judgment entered here.\nOpinion filed December 22, 1911.\nRehearing denied January 9, 1911.\nBrode B. Davis, for plaintiff in error.\nCharles B. Elder, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0525-01",
  "first_page_order": 557,
  "last_page_order": 558
}