{
  "id": 2797876,
  "name": "J. W. Fernald & Co., Defendant in Error, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "J. W. Fernald & Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1912-02-20",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,243",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "420",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "167 Ill. App. 419"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 149,
    "char_count": 1628,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "sha256": "19de53ea31e7215bfda9783474352d990d0d20eb8c7a0a6672246b7e6bd34cd7",
    "simhash": "1:d62d5f89202d18a8",
    "word_count": 282
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:43:24.567643+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. W. Fernald & Co., Defendant in Error, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this ease a recovery was had by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error for the value of a horse and damages to a wagon, the horse having been injured in such a manner as to require his being shot, and the wagon damaged in a collision upon a street crossing.\nThe case was tried before the court without a jury, and the error assigned for reversal is that the finding-upon which the judgment is based was clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nWe have examined the record with great care, and while we are unable to say that we should have reached the same conclusion as the trial judge if the case were before us as a trial court, we do not feel warranted in saying that it is clearly and manifestly against the preponderance of the evidence. Unless we can do so it is onr duty, under repeated rulings of this court and the Supreme Court, to affirm the judgment, which is accordingly done.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMr. Justice Smith dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. A. Coxthell, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Eddy, Haley & Wetter, for defendant in error; Charles H. Pegler, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. W. Fernald & Co., Defendant in Error, v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,243.\nVerdicts\u2014when not disturbed as against the evidence. A verdict will not be set aside as against the evidence unless clearly and manifestly so.\nSmith, J., dissenting.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. McKenzie Cleland, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 20, 1912.\nJ. A. Coxthell, for plaintiff in error.\nEddy, Haley & Wetter, for defendant in error; Charles H. Pegler, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 439,
  "last_page_order": 440
}