{
  "id": 2880146,
  "name": "Edward H. S. Martin, Appellant, v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,652",
  "first_page": "480",
  "last_page": "481",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ill. App. 480"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2348,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "sha256": "02d9caa1a7fccc1351262fa9a2df4656273c2008576a051fc5d8a5ea047b95e6",
    "simhash": "1:010b1ea63c8d62a0",
    "word_count": 385
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:49:21.752065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward H. S. Martin, Appellant, v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Pleading, \u00a7 434 \u2014what is effect of allegation under a videlicet. Where an allegation in a declaration is made under a videlicet, the date is immaterial.\n4. Appeal and errob, \u00a7 1526 \u2014when instruction harmless. An instruction which inaccurately states the date when the contract sued upon was made, as a result of a similarly inaccurate allegation in the declaration, under a videlicet, though ordinarily reversible error, becomes harmless where the evidence will sustain no other verdict.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. W. Martin, for appellant.",
      "Gardner, Foote & Burns, for appellee; Orville J. Taylor, Jr., of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward H. S. Martin, Appellant, v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Company, Appellee.\nGen. No. 20,652.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. J. J. Cooke, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1915.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 263 \u2014when prospectus not part of contract with passenger. The contract between a common carrier and a passenger is the ticket purchased by the passenger, which shows on its face that such is the intention of the parties; and a prospectus regarding the trip for which the ticket was purchased is no part of the contract, where no reference is made to it in the ticket, though alluring promises were made in the prospectus, which induced plaintiff to purchase the ticket, which were not performed by defendant.\n2. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 276 \u2014when duty to furnish wholesome food implied from tichet. A clause in a ticket sold by a common carrier to a passenger, \u201cmeals and berth included,\u201d is to be construed to raise an implied contract that the food should be wholesome and fit for consumption.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Edward H. S. Martin, plaintiff, against the Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Company, a corporation, defendant, in the County Court of Coolc county, to recover on a contract for transportation in one of defendant\u2019s steamships from Chicago to Duluth and return. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nA. W. Martin, for appellant.\nGardner, Foote & Burns, for appellee; Orville J. Taylor, Jr., of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0480-01",
  "first_page_order": 502,
  "last_page_order": 503
}