{
  "id": 5410599,
  "name": "John and William Hallissey, trading as Hallissey Brothers, Appellees, v. Rothschild & Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hallissey v. Rothschild & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-01-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,606",
  "first_page": "283",
  "last_page": "284",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 283"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2194,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "sha256": "7a78d34c85c2ea2db46b7b397d25b373d1b816c5af9b3237c0595b9523b737b3",
    "simhash": "1:4df49bc7948e04bd",
    "word_count": 355
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John and William Hallissey, trading as Hallissey Brothers, Appellees, v. Rothschild & Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John A. Bloomingston, for appellant.",
      "Ryan, Condon & Livingston, for appellees; Donald A. Callahan, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John and William Hallissey, trading as Hallissey Brothers, Appellees, v. Rothschild & Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,606.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John and William Hallissey, trading as Hallissey Brothers, plaintiffs, against Rothschild & Company, defendant, to recover damages to plaintiffs\u2019 horse occasioned by the negligent operation of defendant\u2019s automobile. From a judgment for plaintiffs for $225, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebrob, \u00a7 1512 \u2014when improper remarles by trial court are harmless error. Where the verdict of the jury was the only one under the evidence they could properly have reached, the judgment should not be reversed merely bcause of improper remarks by the trial judge in refusing a request for a continuance of the case.\n2. Automobiles and gabages, \u00a7 3 \u2014when question whether collision of automobile with horse is due to sole negligence of driver of automobile is for jury. Where plaintiffs\u2019 horse while turning into a cross street, after its driver had looked behind and seen defendant\u2019s automobile one-fourth of a block away and going at eighteen or twenty miles an hour, was struck by the automobile which had attempted to pass on the side towards which the horse was turning, held that it was a question of fact for the jury whether the accident was caused by defendant\u2019s sole negligence.\n3. Damages, \u00a7 190 \u2014when verdict for injury to horse is not excessive. Where the evidence showed plaintiffs\u2019 horse was worth $250 before it was injured by defendant\u2019s automobile, and thereafter was lame, unfit for any but farm work, and worth about $50, and that its board following the injury was $46, held that a verdict for $225 was not excessive.\nJohn A. Bloomingston, for appellant.\nRyan, Condon & Livingston, for appellees; Donald A. Callahan, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XY, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0283-01",
  "first_page_order": 307,
  "last_page_order": 308
}