{
  "id": 2968894,
  "name": "Ed. Hockaday & Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ed. Hockaday & Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,440",
  "first_page": "453",
  "last_page": "454",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 453"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2230,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.578,
    "sha256": "4ecef75d12c4406e790519b8d6f0d0068f77dd7ea52267a647133c4ed368710d",
    "simhash": "1:d55d6205158db09c",
    "word_count": 377
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ed. Hockaday & Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Carriers, \u00a7 162 \u2014what is effect of failure to timely present claim for damages. Failure of a consignee of goods to present a claim in writing to the carrier within four months, as stipulated in the bill of lading, after the time delivery should have been made, held to preclude a recovery by him for damages for nondelivery.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Benjamin Levering and Elmer H. Heitmann, for plaintiff in error.",
      "J. N. Davis and J. M. Lorenz, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ed. Hockaday & Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 21,440.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 965 \u2014how points of law may not he preserved for review. An agreement between parties as to what questions of law are to be determined upon the trial of a case is not a compliance with the requirements that, to preserve points of law for review, written propositions must be presented to the court to be held as such.\n2. Carriers, \u00a7 93*\u2014when consignee may not maintain action for damages for nondelivery of goods. Where, on failure of a carrier to deliver a shipment to a consignee in accordance with the bill of lading, the consignee canceled the order, held that he could not maintain an action against the carrier for damages resulting from his having to substitute other goods in lieu of those shipped, as his special interest in the goods shipped was lost on the cancellation of the order.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Raffebty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 10, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Ed. Hockaday & Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, a corporation, defendant, for damages for nondelivery of a shipment of goods consigned to the plaintiff. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiff prosecutes a writ of error.\nBenjamin Levering and Elmer H. Heitmann, for plaintiff in error.\nJ. N. Davis and J. M. Lorenz, for defendant in error.\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": "0453-01",
  "first_page_order": 495,
  "last_page_order": 496
}