{
  "id": 2890242,
  "name": "John D. Casey, Administrator, Appellant, v. Charles Deinet, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Casey v. Deinet",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,449",
  "first_page": "252",
  "last_page": "253",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 252"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 198,
    "char_count": 2311,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29610857621428893
    },
    "sha256": "6175e80972b3bfe76053cae63099bb0e5cfcbc3b7ee9f8475897fd24f8da9c15",
    "simhash": "1:0194e230500c059d",
    "word_count": 383
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John D. Casey, Administrator, Appellant, v. Charles Deinet, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McMahon & Cheney and E. C. Reniff, for appellant.",
      "P. H. Bishop, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John D. Casey, Administrator, Appellant, v. Charles Deinet, Appellee.\nGen. No. 20,449.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Mazzini Slusseb, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 13, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John D. Casey, administrator of the estate of Julia M. Dickinson, deceased, against Charles Deinet to recover the sum of ten thousand dollars for the wrongful death of said Julia M. Dickinson as the result of the alleged negligence of the defendant.\nThe decedent was a tenant of the defendant and at the time of the injury, which subsequently resulted in her death, was engaged in assisting another tenant of the defendant occupying an apartment above that leased by the deceased. While leaning against the railings on the porch, they gave way, precipitating her to a roof below, resulting in injuries which subsequently caused her death. At the conclusion of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, on motion of the defendant, the court orally instructed the jury to find the defendant not guilty, not because of the insufficiency of the evidence, but upon the grounds, as orally stated by the court, that \u201cthe declaration contains no allegation of any facts from which the court can conclude that plaintiff\u2019s intestate was lawfully upon the premises in question or that the defendant owed her any duty,\u201d and that \u201cthe declaration does not state a cause of action.\u201d From the judgment entered in favor of the defendant on the verdict so returned, the plaintiff appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Trial, \u00a7 212 \u2014when sufficiency of pleading cannot be tested by motion for directed verdict. A defendant pleading to the merits, without demurrer, cannot test the sufficiency of the declaration by a motion for a directed verdict.\n2. Trial, \u00a7 185*\u2014when oral peremptory instruction imp-roper. An oral instruction to the jury to find a defendant not guilty of negligence is in violation of section 73 of the Practice Act (J. & A. \u00b6 8610).\nMcMahon & Cheney and E. C. Reniff, for appellant.\nP. H. Bishop, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0252-01",
  "first_page_order": 276,
  "last_page_order": 277
}