{
  "id": 2917294,
  "name": "E. M. Babbitt and M. H. Bird, trading as Millet Elevator Company, Appellees, v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Babbitt v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,943",
  "first_page": "183",
  "last_page": "184",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 183"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2251,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "c584c80f658931ac391f48aaaa15bc6092b9bb3a4778f5ca5d81301038f99cbd",
    "simhash": "1:c3ed1347f2ca90f8",
    "word_count": 367
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. M. Babbitt and M. H. Bird, trading as Millet Elevator Company, Appellees, v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 \u2022 365*\u2014what questions cannot first he raised on appeal. Whether the provision in a bill of lading for its surrender is for the benefit of the carrier only, and whether such provision was waived by reason of certain facts were questions which could not be raised for the first time on appeal, in an action to recover for loss of goods shipped.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kretzinger & Kretzinger and L. L. Smith, for appellant.",
      "Stewart Reed Brown, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. M. Babbitt and M. H. Bird, trading as Millet Elevator Company, Appellees, v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,943. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Cabbiers, \u00a7 139 \u2014u>liat constitutes prima facie proof in action to recover for toss of goods of timely claim for toss. Evidence that certain goods shipped by plaintiffs were delivered and that within four months thereafter about a certain date plaintiffs wrote defendant carrier\u2019s claim agent stating the circumstances of a loss of goods and making claim therefor, from which plaintiffs never directly heard, to which evidence no objection was made or rebuttal offered, constituted prima facie proof of compliance with a provision of the bill of lading under which the goods were shipped that claims for loss must be presented within four months after delivery, in an action to recover for a loss, wherein the defense set up was noncompliance with such provision.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R, Newcomeb, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1917.\nRehearing denied January 2, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by E. M. Babbitt and M. H. Bird, trading as Millet Elevator Company, plaintiffs, against Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, defendant, to recover for loss of goods in an interstate commerce transaction, brought by the shippers against the initial carrier. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.\nKretzinger & Kretzinger and L. L. Smith, for appellant.\nStewart Reed Brown, for appellees.\nSee min\u00e9is Notes Digest, Veis. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XY,, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0183-01",
  "first_page_order": 211,
  "last_page_order": 212
}