{
  "id": 5384605,
  "name": "Eugene F. McDonald, Jr., Defendant in Error, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "McDonald v. Lehigh Valley Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,241",
  "first_page": "628",
  "last_page": "629",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 628"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 3137,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.346430042832613
    },
    "sha256": "50a2f0cdf12a2b529d83f520b902c841d3e467c7338e6475a4e8bdd2699801d2",
    "simhash": "1:f55e48c7c228a0b0",
    "word_count": 527
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Eugene F. McDonald, Jr., Defendant in Error, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 45 \u2014when admission of \"oill of lading without proof of execution error. In an action against an initial carrier to recover for damages alleged to have been caused goods in shipment, it is error to admit in evidence, over defendant\u2019s objection, a printed form of a hill of lading purporting to be signed by defendant\u2019s agent where there is no proof that the signature is that of the alleged agent nor that he was, in fact defendant\u2019s agent.\n\u25a0 2. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 128*\u2014when evidence insufficient to show condition of freight when received. In an action against an initial carrier to recover for damages alleged to have been caused an automobile in transporting it, where the defendant denies negligence, the damage is not shown by the introduction of an alleged hill of lading of defendant, the execution of which is not proven and the admission of which is objected to, reciting the receipt of the automobile \u201cin apparent good order,\u201d where it appears that it had been in use for some time and there is nothing to show that it was not in the same condition when shipped as when delivered at its destination.\n3. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 128*\u2014what not admission as to condition of freight when received. In an action against a carrier for injury to freight, the admission by defendant\u2019s counsel of the receipt of the freight by defendant is not an admission that the freight was in good order when received.\n4. Evidence, \u00a7 4*\u2014when judicial notice not taloen of Municipal Court rule. The Appellate Court cannot take judicial notice of a rule of the Municipal Court of Chicago which is not in the record.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hoag & Ullmann, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Sabath, Stafford & Sabath, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Eugene F. McDonald, Jr., Defendant in Error, v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,241.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 11, 1915.\nRehearing denied March 24, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Eugene F. McDonald, Jr., plaintiff, against Lehigh Valley Eailroad Company defendant, for damages alleged to have been sustained by the failure of defendant to safely carry the plaintiff\u2019s automobile from Truxton, New York to Chicago, Illinois.\nFor the plaintiff were introduced in evidence a freight bill of the Michigan Central Eailroad Co., issued at Chicago, and a bill of lading, alleged to have been issued by defendant, which recited the receipt of the automobile at- Truxton, N. Y., in apparent good order. The bill of lading was received in evidence over defendant\u2019s objection. Plaintiff and other witnesses testified to the condition of the car and its value when it was received in Chicago.\nNo evidence was introduced for defendant.\nTo reverse a judgment for plaintiff for five hundred dollars, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nHoag & Ullmann, for plaintiff in error.\nSabath, Stafford & Sabath, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0628-01",
  "first_page_order": 672,
  "last_page_order": 673
}