{
  "id": 5409010,
  "name": "Anthony Morolewski, Appellee, v. Richard McCurrie et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morolewski v. McCurrie",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,848",
  "first_page": "551",
  "last_page": "552",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 551"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1932,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "sha256": "a2b9276ae8af16f8ddbdf137cfee83303c86e50af76779eb6666b0264d8b3c30",
    "simhash": "1:db7ae3d4b10d02f8",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Anthony Morolewski, Appellee, v. Richard McCurrie et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Negligence, \u00a7 157*\u2014when burden of proof is on plaintiff. In an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant\u2019s negligence, the burden of proving that plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, that his negligence did not contribute to cause the accident and defendant\u2019s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, is on the plaintiff.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Litzinger, McGurn & Reid, for appellants.",
      "Julius B. Rubenstein and Edward J. Green, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Anthony Morolewski, Appellee, v. Richard McCurrie et al., Appellants.\nGen. No. 22,848.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Negligence, \u00a7 185 \u2014when evidence insufficient to support verdict. Evidence in action to recover for personal injuries examined and held insufficient to support the verdict.\n2. Master and servant, \u00a7 1*\u2014when evidence insufficient to show existence of relationship. Evidence in action for personal injuries examined and held not to show existence of relation of master and servant between defendant and the person through whose negligence the injuries were alleged .to have been caused.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscar M. Torrison, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed May 21, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Anthony Morolewski, plaintiff, against the American Laundry Machinery Company, Lord & Bushnell Company and Richard McCurrie, defendants, to recover for personal injuries. At the trial plaintiff took a nonsuit as to the American Laundry Machinery Company and the jury found in favor of Lord & Bushnell Company and returned a verdict against McCurrie, on which judgment was entered for $2,650. From this judgment defendant McCurrie appeals.\nLitzinger, McGurn & Reid, for appellants.\nJulius B. Rubenstein and Edward J. Green, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0551-01",
  "first_page_order": 579,
  "last_page_order": 580
}