{
  "id": 2849141,
  "name": "W. A. Fraser Company, Appellee, v. The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "W. A. Fraser Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,907",
  "first_page": "455",
  "last_page": "457",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 455"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3239,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "sha256": "8ef2fe6044f860f1bced8a21e91c73599cc69f97c253614faf6f2ea62db3b561",
    "simhash": "1:165b732591a68bda",
    "word_count": 548
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. A. Fraser Company, Appellee, v. The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding \"Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Municipal Court op Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014when proof is limited to claim made by plaintiff\u2019s statement. In the Municipal Court, where formal pleadings are not required, the name given to the action by the plaintiff is not necessarily decisive of the right to recover, but he is limited in his evidence to the claim he has made. He cannot make one claim in his statement and recover upon proof of another, without amendment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding \"Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilt,tam D. Barge, for appellant; Chester M. Dawes and J. A. Connell, of counsel.",
      "Charles A. Butler and Brown & Ewen, for appellee; Warren Pease, Charles P. Molthrop and Franklin Baber, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. A. Fraser Company, Appellee, v. The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,907.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; .the Hon. H. C. Moban, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 26, 1914.\nRehearing denied April 9, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by W. A. Fraser Company against The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company to recover for the loss of grain shipped by the plaintiff over the railroad of defendant at various times during a period of eight years. Plaintiff was in the grain business and operated a grain elevator in each of nine towns in Illinois along the line of defendant\u2019s road. About 5,300 cars of grain were delivered to and transported by the defendant for the plaintiff during said eight years, and plaintiff\u2019s claim is for the value of grain alleged to have been lost in transit, as shown by the difference between the weights of the grain as loaded into defendant\u2019s cars and as delivered from such cars at destination. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $22,087.87, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Carriers, \u00a7 148 \u2014when computation as basis for damages for loss of grain in various shipments inadmissible. In an action against a railroad company for the loss of grain in transit on various shipments made by the plaintiff during a period of eight years, proof of the value of the grain lost by permitting a witness for plaintiff to testify as to a computation made by multiplying the total loss in each of the shipments by the average of the prices obtained for the grain which was delivered upon, the several dates when it was delivered, held inadmissible, and allowing such proof held reversible error, it appearing that the jury made the computation a basis for its verdict.\n2. Carriers, \u00a7 137 \u2014proof of damages resulting from breach of contracts contained in various bills of lading. Where an action against a carrier is to recover damages for breach of contracts contained in various bills of lading, plaintiff is required to prove a breach of each contract and damages resulting therefrom and the question that each of the bills of lading constitute a separate and independent contract depends, to some extent at least,, upon the circumstances under which such bills of lading were issued.\nWilt,tam D. Barge, for appellant; Chester M. Dawes and J. A. Connell, of counsel.\nCharles A. Butler and Brown & Ewen, for appellee; Warren Pease, Charles P. Molthrop and Franklin Baber, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0455-01",
  "first_page_order": 481,
  "last_page_order": 483
}