{
  "id": 5380604,
  "name": "Wilhelmine Herrman, Defendant in Error, v. Anton Ernst and Margaretha Ernst, Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Herrman v. Ernst",
  "decision_date": "1915-01-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,583",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 171"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1707,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "sha256": "94b0185da8ce635d5c8743961b91cb0c45e0953805301d8ac7081d2cbe980cb1",
    "simhash": "1:f9d24096800bb2dc",
    "word_count": 277
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Wilhelmine Herrman, Defendant in Error, v. Anton Ernst and Margaretha Ernst, Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Q. J. Chott, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wilhelmine Herrman, Defendant in Error, v. Anton Ernst and Margaretha Ernst, Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 18,583.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Judson F. Going, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed upon remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 25, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Wilhelmine Herrmann against Anton and Margaretha, Ernst to recover for personal injuries received by plaintiff from being bitten by a dog belonging to defendants. To reverse a judgment entered on a verdict for two hundred dollars, defendants prosecute a writ of error.\nQ. J. Chott, for plaintiffs in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Animals, $ 46 \u2014when recovery for dog hite excessive. A verdict for two hundred dollars for injuries sustained by a dog bite, held excessive to the extent of one hundred dollars, where it appeared plaintiff received a small bite on the leg which healed without delay.\n2. Animals, \u00a7 43*\u2014sufficiency of evidence. In an action to recover for an injury resulting to plaintiff from a bite by defendants\u2019 dog, where plaintiff claimed she was bitten by the dog which was chained near the entrance of defendants\u2019 building when she went upon the premises to inquire concerning rooms for rent, and defendant asserted nonliability on the ground that plaintiff was a trespasser and also guilty of contributory negligence, held that a finding for plaintiff was sustained by the evidence.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Volt. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, earn# topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 215,
  "last_page_order": 216
}