{
  "id": 2858229,
  "name": "James Rogers, Appellee, v. William F. Weller, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. Weller",
  "decision_date": "1914-06-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,298",
  "first_page": "314",
  "last_page": "315",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "187 Ill. App. 314"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3228,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6025635085288756
    },
    "sha256": "e88c512c5741cbc5a4d49c512231b94838a4bf5005ff19814b10735699c730e8",
    "simhash": "1:8bd40de4f80cb041",
    "word_count": 571
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:10.884591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Rogers, Appellee, v. William F. Weller, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Chattel mobtgages, \u00a7 267 \u2014when evidence insufficient to establish delivery of statutory statement to mortgagor. In an action of debt brought by a chattel mortgagor against the mortgagee to recover the penalty provided by section 2 of the Act of 1895, J. & A. If 7602, for failure of the mortgagee to deliver a statement showing the items of property sold, etc., under a power of sale contained in the mortgage, an attempt on the part of defendant to show that such statement had in fact been \u201cdelivered by mail,\u201d held insufficient, where the witness testified he could not say when he mailed the letter nor to whom the letter was addressed, and it was admitted it was not mailed to plaintiff.\n4. Appeal and errob, \u00a7 1241*\u2014when party cannot complain of language in instructions. Appellant cannot complain of the language of instructions of his adversary where the instructions offered by himself contained the same language.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cole S. Everett, for appellant; Edward J. Kelley, of counsel.",
      "David K. Cochrane, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Rogers, Appellee, v. William F. Weller, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,298.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Penalties, \u00a7 16 \u2014when verdict not a compromise verdict. A verdict in an action for a penalty, held not a compromise verdict, where there was no evidence that it was the result of any agreement among the jurors to reach a verdict by compromise and the amount thereof is within the range of the testimony of the witnesses as to value and is supported by some of such testimony.\n2. Chattel mortsages, \u00a7 267*\u2014basis of value in determining penalty for failure of mortgagee to furnish mortgagor with statu tory statement. In an action to recover a penalty under section 2 of the Act of 1895, J. & A. f 7602, held that a verdict could not be complained of on the ground that the basis of value should have been the value of the property at the date of seizure instead of at the date of sale, where the property was sold five days after it was seized and it was shown to be in substantially the same condition at the time of sale as when it was seized, and there was no evidence of a change of value; but also held that the statute seems to require the value to be fixed as of the date of sale.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Isaac Hudson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 15, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of debt by James Rogers against William F. Weller based upon section 2 of the Act of 1895 (Hurd\u2019s R. S., ch. 95, \u00a7 26, J. & A. U 7602), for failure of a chattel mortgagee to furnish and deliver to the mortgagor a statement showing the items of property sold, expenses connected with the sale, etc. The jury returned a verdict finding the value of the property sold to be $1,950, and assessed plaintiff\u2019s damages at one-third thereof, or $650. To reverse a judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appeals.\nCole S. Everett, for appellant; Edward J. Kelley, of counsel.\nDavid K. Cochrane, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulated Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0314-01",
  "first_page_order": 340,
  "last_page_order": 341
}