{
  "id": 2843864,
  "name": "E. P. Stacy & Sons, Appellee, v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "E. P. Stacy & Sons v. Oregon Short Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1913-12-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,000",
  "first_page": "30",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 30"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1686,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.553,
    "sha256": "58ae78a1b6b06ad6c459e9714006a53daa0d85997db332c8b13aee7745dae268",
    "simhash": "1:91dd3024501a84dc",
    "word_count": 280
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. P. Stacy & Sons, Appellee, v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Davis & Rankin, for appellant; Edmund P. Kelly, of counsel.",
      "Charles A. Butler, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. P. Stacy & Sons, Appellee, v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,000.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Ebeeman K. Blake, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 2, 1913.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Carriers, \u00a7 139 \u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain verdict for negligence in shipment. In an action for negligence of the transportation of peaches, evidence held sufficient to show that plaintiff was the legal holder of the bills of lading and a verdict for plaintiff held not to be against the manifest weight of the evidence.\n2. Municipal court of Chicago, \u00a7 28 \u2014when objection to statement of claim not preserved for review. In an action against a carrier for negligence in the shipment of peaches, objection that plaintiff did not set out in its statement of claim that it was the lawful holder and owner of the bills of lading cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by E. P. Stacy & Sons, a corporation, against Oregon Short Line Railroad Company to recover damages for negligence in the transshipment of a number of carloads of peaches from Brigham City, Utah to various points in other States, the defendant being the initial carrier. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $10,080.75, defendant appeals.\nDavis & Rankin, for appellant; Edmund P. Kelly, of counsel.\nCharles A. Butler, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0030-01",
  "first_page_order": 54,
  "last_page_order": 55
}