{
  "id": 2831750,
  "name": "Herman L. Wolff for use of Barnett Zollo, Defendant in Error, v. Ernest M. Cross, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wolff ex rel. Zollo v. Cross",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,160",
  "first_page": "454",
  "last_page": "455",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 454"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1586,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "sha256": "77943f8a797f080d901fb2bfbeb8668a9245420a30fec2981e2fdc58653ab499",
    "simhash": "1:4d7e9089142db3bc",
    "word_count": 266
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Herman L. Wolff for use of Barnett Zollo, Defendant in Error, v. Ernest M. Cross, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kruse & Peden and R. C. Merrick, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Charles J. Herman, for defendant in error; Douglas C. Gregg, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Herman L. Wolff for use of Barnett Zollo, Defendant in Error, v. Ernest M. Cross, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,160.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Fred C. Hill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912..\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 15, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Herman L. Wolff, for use of Barnett Zoilo, against Ernest M. Cross, trading as E. M. Cross & Co., for damages. From a judgment for plaintiff for $366.92, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and eeror, \u00a7 1414 \u2014when finding of court will not he sustained. In an action for damages caused hy the failure of a defendant to deliver certain eggs according to quality, held that the controlling question of fact was whether defendant\u2019s salesman substituted different eggs for those actually purchased by plaintiff, and the evidence being conflicting such finding was not unwarranted.\n2. Damages, \u00a7 179*\u2014what is proper evidence of damage. In an action for damages caused hy the failure to deliver eggs to plaintiff according to quality, evidence of a witness interpreting the report of an inspection of the eggs by an employe of the Chicago Butter and Egg Board was incompetent, but harmless, when the report verified the witness\u2019 statements.\nKruse & Peden and R. C. Merrick, for plaintiff in error.\nCharles J. Herman, for defendant in error; Douglas C. Gregg, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0454-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 479
}