{
  "id": 5823806,
  "name": "Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, Appellant, v. James S. Templeton et al., trading as James S. Templeton & Sons, Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pittsburgh v. Templeton",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,692",
  "first_page": "377",
  "last_page": "378",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 377"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 2035,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "sha256": "b8008fdfc71bcd97ae20f9756c484975692e8369fc302eb3e5bc62023c93ec38",
    "simhash": "1:e489faa0feaf009f",
    "word_count": 334
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, Appellant, v. James S. Templeton et al., trading as James S. Templeton & Sons, Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Loesch, Scofield, Loesch & Bicharos, for appellant; Theodore Schmidt, of counsel.",
      "Jeffery, Campbell & Clark, for appellees; Charles V. Clark, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, Appellant, v. James S. Templeton et al., trading as James S. Templeton & Sons, Appellees.\nGen. No. 23,692.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 29, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, plaintiff, against James S. Templeton, James E. Templeton and Kenneth S. Ternpleton, copartners, trading as James S. Templeton & Sons, defendants, to recover demurrage. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 81*\u2014what is not notice to consignee of arrival of freight. Notice of the arrival of freight which is not addressed to any person but merely to an elevator located on the carrier\u2019s track is not notice to the consignee.\n2. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 81*\u2014when elevator company not agent of consignee of grain for purpose of notice of arrival. Where the consignee of grain directs it to be consigned to him at the elevator of an elevator company, pursuant to the request of the carrier\u2019s agent that he send there such' grain as needed treatment, the elevator company is not the consignee\u2019s agent so that notice can be given him of the arrival of the grain, but is an independent contractor.\n3. Masteb and sebvant, \u00a7 1*\u2014what is not notice to employer. Notice to an independent contractor is not notice to his employer.\n4. Cabbiebs, \u00a7 208 \u2014when consignee not UaMe for demurrage. A consignee is not liable for demurrage where he was not given notice of the arrival of the cars as required by the demurrage riiles.\nLoesch, Scofield, Loesch & Bicharos, for appellant; Theodore Schmidt, of counsel.\nJeffery, Campbell & Clark, for appellees; Charles V. Clark, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number#"
  },
  "file_name": "0377-01",
  "first_page_order": 403,
  "last_page_order": 404
}