{
  "id": 5385301,
  "name": "Elmer S. Eppstein, Defendant in Error, v. M. & M. Hotel Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eppstein v. M. & M. Hotel Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,628",
  "first_page": "603",
  "last_page": "604",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 603"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 129,
    "char_count": 1622,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "sha256": "e765947919c8a4b71e74e009d1fdd485ca9f7ae4eda1f67ce4bb71f26808c7ba",
    "simhash": "1:135f4a96b96984b4",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Elmer S. Eppstein, Defendant in Error, v. M. & M. Hotel Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph D. Irose, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Aaron B. Eppstein, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Elmer S. Eppstein, Defendant in Error, v. M. & M. Hotel Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,628.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Keabns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Elmer S. Eppstein, plaintiff, against M. & M. Hotel Company, a corporation, defendant,- to recover judgment for clothes and a handbag alleged to have been stolen from plaintiff\u2019s room in defendant\u2019s hotel.\nDefendant\u2019s contention was that plaintiff was a permanent lodger and not a transient guest and that therefore it was not to be held to the liability of an innkeeper but that its relation was. merely that of lodging house keeper.\nOn the submission to the jury of a special interrogatory embodying this issue, it found that plaintiff was not a permanent lodger and judgment was rendered for plaintiff. To reverse this judgment, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Innkeepers, \u00a7 3*\u2014when evidence sufficient to show guest not permanent lodger. Evidence examined and held sufficient to warrant finding that plaintiff was a transient guest and not a permanent lodger.\n2. Municipal Court op Chicago, \u00a7 26*\u2014when exclusion of statement not error. In an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago it is not error to exclude as evidence an amended statement of claim not signed by plaintiff and subsequently withdrawn.\nJoseph D. Irose, for plaintiff in error.\nAaron B. Eppstein, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0603-01",
  "first_page_order": 647,
  "last_page_order": 648
}