{
  "id": 5385105,
  "name": "Harry A. Sell, Appellant, v. Charles H. Fisk, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sell v. Fisk",
  "decision_date": "1915-01-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,273",
  "first_page": "194",
  "last_page": "194",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 194"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 1739,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4371525135249198
    },
    "sha256": "5075baee7e18544cd0ebe54b9dda89c601f974ecc030d6f9f192d96138f114b8",
    "simhash": "1:5970cbd7d18d42dc",
    "word_count": 290
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harry A. Sell, Appellant, v. Charles H. Fisk, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert H. Fry, for appellant.",
      "Brundage, Landon & Holt, for appellee; Robert N. Holt, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harry A. Sell, Appellant, v. Charles H. Fisk, Appellee.\nGen. No. 20,273.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Tbiax, \u00a7 212 \u2014insufficiency of pleadings as ground for direction . of verdict. The insufficiency of the declaration cannot he tested on a motion to direct a verdict, even though it is fatally defective, for by pleading to the merits the defendant admits its sufficiency and elects to proceed to the trial of an issue of fact. The fact that a defendant by pleading does not waive substantial defects in the declaration and may take advantage thereof by a motion in arrest of judgment does not affect the rule.\n2. Negligence, \u00a7 204*\u2014right to direction of verdict. Where plaintiff\u2019s exercise of due care becomes a question of fact for the jury, a directed verdict for defendant is improper even though the declaration did not allege the exercise of due care, since the verdict might cure such defect.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. M. L. MoKinxet, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 26, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Harry A. Sell against Charles H. Fisk to recover damages for personal injuries. At the close of plaintiff\u2019s case the court, on motion of defendant, excluded the testimony and directed a verdict because of the insufficiency of the declaration. To reverse a judgment entered on the verdict, plaintiff appeals.\nAlbert H. Fry, for appellant.\nBrundage, Landon & Holt, for appellee; Robert N. Holt, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumnlative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0194-01",
  "first_page_order": 238,
  "last_page_order": 238
}