{
  "id": 2963506,
  "name": "Peter Fox et al., trading as Peter Fox Sons Company, Defendants in Error, v. Western Union Telegraph Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fox v. Western Union Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,579",
  "first_page": "477",
  "last_page": "478",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 477"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2211,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "sha256": "4f397c54b998567564951c27398df6e62aed90f215dcda3c6899b3268e6f04ef",
    "simhash": "1:aa7b8894145bea9c",
    "word_count": 369
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peter Fox et al., trading as Peter Fox Sons Company, Defendants in Error, v. Western Union Telegraph Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Telegraphs and telephones, \u00a7 32 \u2014what is measure of damages for error in transmission of telegram. Where a telegram in' which the plaintiff offered to purchase potatoes at sixty-nine cents a bushel was erroneously transmitted by the defendant so as to read seventy-nine cents, which offer was accepted by the addressee, and after the error had been discovered the shipment was made and paid for by the plaintiff at the latter price, held that in the absence of any proof as to the value of the potatoes at the time in question and of evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that the -plaintiff suffered any loss by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to recover only the amount paid for the transmission of the telegram and interest thereon.\n2. Telegraphs and telephones, \u00a7 37*\u2014when burden of proof is on plaintiff. In an action for damages alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant in transmitting a telegram, held that the burden of proving the damages was on the plaintiff.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "West & Eckhart, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Pines & Newmann, for defendants in error; Alvin E. Stein, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peter Fox et al., trading as Peter Fox Sons Company, Defendants in Error, v. Western Union Telegraph Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,579.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry C. Beitler, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and judgment here.\nOpinion filed October 10, 1916.\nRehearing denied October 23, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Peter Fox, Anthony M. Fox, John L. Fox, Joseph J. Fox, Frank G. Fox, Michael E. Fox, William J. Fox and Eng. E. Fox, trading as the Peter Fox Sons Company, plaintiffs, against the Western Union- Telegraph Company, a corporation, defendant, for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant in transmitting a telegram. To review a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nWest & Eckhart, for plaintiff in error.\nPines & Newmann, for defendants in error; Alvin E. Stein, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0477-01",
  "first_page_order": 519,
  "last_page_order": 520
}