{
  "id": 5383235,
  "name": "C. G. Goodwin, Appellant, v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goodwin v. Oregon Short Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1915-01-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,256",
  "first_page": "146",
  "last_page": "148",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 146"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 4610,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7507067014331723
    },
    "sha256": "21337ac0b8284e175ac02519a4f648404d667df81ef93f8ef99343ba3d8c7831",
    "simhash": "1:12d0540ddf074390",
    "word_count": 809
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. G. Goodwin, Appellant, v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice\nBrown delivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 248 \u2014when evidence as to agent\u2019s authority inadmissible. In an action against a carrier for damages caused by its failure to furnish stock cars at a point on another line on a certain day, pursuant to an alleged agreement of its local station agent, it is not' error to refuse to permit the jury to consider on the question of the agent\u2019s authority evidence of the statement by the agent that he had received a telegram from the carrier\u2019s \u201cdispatcher\" at a certain station, not a junction point with the foreign line, that the cars would be at the agreed station on a certain day, there being no evidence that the dispatcher\u2019s authority to make such an agreement was any greater that that of the agent.\n4. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 248*\u2014when evidence insufficient to show ratification of agent\u2019s promise to furnish cars. In an action against a carrier for damages caused by its failure to furnish stock cars at a point on another line, on a certain day, as its local station agent had agreed it would do, the fact that cars were furnished at the point on the foreign line eighteen days later is not evidence of ratification of the agent\u2019s agreement, where the evidence shows that the cars so furnished were delivered by the carrier to the foreign road at a junction point and thereafter the distribution was controlled by such foreign road.\n5. Appf.at, and ebbob, \u00a7 1466*\u2014when rejection of evidence not reversible error. In an action against a carrier for damages caused by its failure to furnish stock cars on a certain day at a point on a foreign line, in violation of an agreement made by a local station agent, it is not reversible error to refuse to allow or compel the carrier\u2019s assistant general freight agent to answer questions as to the orders to the station agent at another station for the placing of cars on another road, where the answers to similar previous questions did not sustain plaintiff\u2019s case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles A. Butler, for appellant; Franklin Raber, of counsel.",
      "John A. Sheean, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. G. Goodwin, Appellant, v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Appellee.\nGen. No. 20,256.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 25, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of the first class by C. Gr. Goodwin against Oregon Short Line Railroad Company for damages by failure to furnish stock cars at a specified place and time.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence showed that he requested defendant\u2019s local station agent to have a certain number of stock cars delivered at a certain station on a specified day; that the agent told him to call again at a later date in reference thereto; that on his inquiring on the later date, the agent postponed his answer to the following day; that on his third inquiry, the agent informed him the cars would be furnished as requested, stating that he had received a telegram from the defendant\u2019s \u201cdispatcher\u201d at another point to that effect; that the cars were not furnished until eighteen days after the date set.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Cabbiers, \u00a7 222 \u2014when station agent not authorized to hind carrier to furnish cars on another line. A local station agent has no implied, presumptive, apparent or incidental authority to make a contract binding the carrier to furnish cars at a station on a foreign road at a certain date for the shipment of live stock.\n2. Cabbiers, \u00a7 247*\u2014when burden not on carrier to show shipper\u2019s knowledge of agent\u2019s lack of authority. In an action to recover damages caused by the failure of a carrier to furnish stock cars at a point on another line on a certain day, as its station agent had agreed to do, the burden is not on the carrier to show that the shipper knew that the agent had no authority to make such an agreement, there being no evidence that the agent had either express or implied authority to do so.\nThe evidence showed that the station at which the cars were to be delivered was not on defendant\u2019s line nor at a junction point with its line and that the \u201cdispatcher\u2019s\u201d station was not at a junction of its line with the line on which the delivery station was located.\nOn an instructed verdict of the jury, the defendant obtained a judgment of nil capiait and costs. From this judgment, plaintiff appeals.\nCharles A. Butler, for appellant; Franklin Raber, of counsel.\nJohn A. Sheean, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0146-01",
  "first_page_order": 190,
  "last_page_order": 192
}