{
  "id": 5818219,
  "name": "James F. Bishop, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bishop v. Chicago Railways Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,897",
  "first_page": "397",
  "last_page": "398",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 397"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3685,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "sha256": "5f06f703ad82a99ee9022c58a374a654efe431b0de6d0f0768f34544521c8fd7",
    "simhash": "1:9741fc72b889b3d7",
    "word_count": 613
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James F. Bishop, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 12*\u2014when plaintiff must show in pleadings that either of parties not under. In an action to recover for the death of an employee, the burden is on the plaintiff to assert in his pleadings and to prove that either the employer or the employee is not hound hy the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act [Callaghan\u2019s 1916 St. Supp. V 5475(1) et seq.].\n\u25a0 4. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 14*\u2014duty of plaintiff in action for death to prove that employment is hut casual. In the. provision in section 5 of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act [Callaghan\u2019s 1916 St. Supp. If 5475(5)] that the term \u201cemployee\u201d shall be construed to mean \u201cevery person in the service of another under any contract of hire, * * * but not including any person whose employment is hut casual,\u201d the concluding words constitute an exception, and, in an action to recover for the death of an employee, the plaintiff, to bring himself within the exception, must affirmatively prove it\n5. Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 12 \u2014what is essential allegation in action to recover for death of employee. If, in an action to recover for the death of an employee, plaintiff does not, in his declaration, negative the presumption .that the parties are under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act [Callaghan\u2019s 1916 St. Supp. If 5475(1) et seq.h, he has failed to state an element, the existence of which is essential to entitle him to recover.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "P. L. McArdle and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.",
      "James C. McShane, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James F. Bishop, Administrator, Appellee, v. Chicago Railways Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,897.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. WbBKMEN\u2019s Compensation Act, \u00a7 12 \u2014when declaration in action for death of employee is insufficient. In an action to recovei for the death of an employee, a declaration which omits to allege or state any facts showing that the employer and employee were not, at the time of the accident, under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act [Callaghan\u2019s 1916 St. Supp. f 5475(1) et seq.], does not state a cause of action.\n2. ' Workmen's Compensation Act, \u00a7 14*\u2014when declaration does not allege casual employment of employee. Allegations in a declaration, in an action to recover for the death of an employee, that defendant, on the date of the accident, owned and operated a street railway system and a power house, and that \u201cprior to and at the time aforesaid, said deceased was employed hy the defendant as a fireman,\u201d to fire certain boilers which defendant operated in its power house to furnish steam for the operation of the dynamos of defendant; that deceased earned $4 a day; that defendant maintained boilers which \u201cdeceased was required to fire and work with,\u201d and which also refers to the conduct of deceased \u201cin the discharge of his duties\u201d as fireman, are inconsistent with the theory that the employment was casual and constitute an affirmative allegation of regular employment.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph Sabath, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nReversed and judgment here.\nOpinion filed April 29, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by James F. Bishop, administrator of the estate of William E. Ford, deceased, plaintiff, against Chicago Railways Company, defendant, to recover for the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate. From a judgment for plaintiff for $9,000, defendant appeals.\nP. L. McArdle and Charles LeRoy Brown, for appellant; John R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nJames C. McShane, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0397-01",
  "first_page_order": 423,
  "last_page_order": 424
}