{
  "id": 5415737,
  "name": "Henry Hawk, Appellee, v. Farmers' Serum Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hawk v. Farmers' Serum Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-11-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "616",
  "last_page": "617",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 616"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1817,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "sha256": "588ee925b291125ceeb47f01369037fa636c19bbada5c3ea995f00d3af6e453b",
    "simhash": "1:4d6b70d5200fe239",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Hawk, Appellee, v. Farmers\u2019 Serum Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Animals, \u00a7 46 \u2014When damages for injury to crops by hogs are not excessive. In an action for damages for injury to plaintiff\u2019s crops by defendant\u2019s hogs in an adjoining field getting into plaintiff\u2019s fields and destroying a part of said crops therein, held, that the amount of damages accruing to the plaintiff was a question of fact to be determined by the jury from the evidence, and that a verdict for six hundred dollars was sustained by the evidence.\n2. Damages, \u00a7 172*\u2014what testimony is proper to show previous estimate of amount of loss. In an action for damages, a question asked of the plaintiff whether he had instituted a former suit against another person for the same loss in which the damages were laid at a less sum than in the suit on trial is proper as tending to show his estimate of the amount of his loss at that time.\n3. Witnesses, \u00a7 181*\u2014When refusal of repetition of proper question is not error. It is not error to refuse a repetition of a proper question which has already been asked and answered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. E. Pope, for appellant.",
      "M. B. Sullivan, for appellee. \u201e"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Hawk, Appellee, v. Farmers\u2019 Serum Company, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. J. F. Gh-lham, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 13, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Henry Hawk, plaintiff, against the Farmers\u2019 Serum Company, defendant, to recover for damage to growing crops due to trespassing hogs belonging to defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for six hundred dollars and costs, defendant appeals.\nC. E. Pope, for appellant.\nM. B. Sullivan, for appellee. \u201e\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yds, XI to XY, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0616-01",
  "first_page_order": 642,
  "last_page_order": 643
}