{
  "id": 5409695,
  "name": "George E. Ford, Plaintiff in Error, v. American Express Company and Illinois Central Railroad Company, Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ford v. American Express Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-01-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,581",
  "first_page": "275",
  "last_page": "276",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 275"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2104,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.377131060536734
    },
    "sha256": "265f797fda8068a5097ffc80e60e505c21c05b4f95c84ca6852813d33bad34cb",
    "simhash": "1:59f3d88c9189929d",
    "word_count": 347
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George E. Ford, Plaintiff in Error, v. American Express Company and Illinois Central Railroad Company, Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Carriers, \u00a7 4 \u2014when railroad is not common carrier. A railroad company is not a common carrier of the traffic of an express company, hut acts simply as its agent.\n2. Carriers, \u00a7 82 \u2014what constitutes delivery to consignee by express company. Where a carload of strawberries shipped by an express company as a common carrier was placed by the railroad company on its team tracks at destination which were used by the express company for its deliveries, and the consignee there opened the car, inspected the contents, and receipted and paid the charges for the shipment, held that there was a delivery to the consignee, notwithstanding when he went to unload the next day he found the car had been taken away by some one\u2019s mistake.\n3. Carriers, \u00a7 96 \u2014when not \u00ediable for delay in delivery. There can be no recovery against a railroad company for failure to perform a contract to deliver goods promptly where no goods are actually received by the company, but are received by an express company whose cars are carried by the railroad company.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stewart Reed Brown, for plaintiff in error.",
      "William A. Purcell, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George E. Ford, Plaintiff in Error, v. American Express Company and Illinois Central Railroad Company, Defendants in Error.\nGen. No. 22,581.\n(Not to foe reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rufus F. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1917.\nRehearing denied February 5, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago by George E. Ford, plaintiff, against the American Express Company and Illinois Central Railroad Company, defendants, to recover damages for alleged failure by the defendants to deliver promptly a carload of strawberries, shipped from Louisiana to Chicago. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.\nStewart Reed Brown, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam A. Purcell, for defendants in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0275-01",
  "first_page_order": 299,
  "last_page_order": 300
}