{
  "id": 4971359,
  "name": "Grant Parker v. J. D. Foster",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parker v. Foster",
  "decision_date": "1889-01-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "586",
  "last_page": "588",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 586"
    }
  ],
  "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": 4052,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.521,
    "sha256": "aa9da83fd97d5641da5f87cda30f2f22a3b4c71ab1bae4abc3b3528f4252a4ea",
    "simhash": "1:16c53c199ee2c154",
    "word_count": 763
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:26:47.112254+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Grant Parker v. J. D. Foster."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reeves, J.\nThis was an action of replevin to recover the possession of a safe, brought by appellee. It is conceded that neither appellant nor appellee owned the safe. It belonged to one Starr. Starr came to the house of appellee on the 2\u00e9th day of February, 1888, with a team, wagon and the safe in controversy, and stated that he was going to his home and asked appellee to take care of his team, wagon and safe while he was gone. When Starr went to the train, appellee went with him. Appellee went into the office of appellant at the station and said to him, \u201c I am agent for a money safe; have a sample safe in my care; the owner is going away to be gone thirty days; don\u2019t you think it would be a nice thing to have here in the office while the owner is gone ? \u201d\nThe appellant replied, \u201cYes; ask the owner\u2019s permission to bring the safe to the office, and leave it here until he returns.\u201d Appellee went to Starr and told him what appellant had said, and Starr said, \u201cYes; bring it to the office.\u201d Appellee then took Starr into appellant\u2019s office and introduced him to appellant, and appellee told appellant that Starr said, \u201c we might bring the safe to the office and keep it there while he was gone.\u201d Starr then said, \u201cYes, go and bring the safe and put it in the office.\u201d This is appellee\u2019s account of what transpired in reference to the bringing of the safe to appellant\u2019s office.\nAppellant testified as follows: \u201cOn the morning of the 25th of February last, Parker came to my office and stated he was agent for a safe; asked him whose safe it was, and he replied a man by the name of Starr. Parker said Starr was going away, and asked me if I did not think it would be a nice thing to have in the office while Starr was gone; that he would be gone about thirty days. I said yes; ask him if we can bring it here. Parker said no, you ask him; and I said where is he? And Parker said he is in the other room. I requested Parker to bring him in. Parker did so. I asked him if he had any objection to bringing the safe to my office and keeping it there until he came back, and Starr said, none whatever. I think Parker and 1 both asked him this question simultaneously. Starr said, in a general way, go and bring the safe down here and put it in the office. Starr said to me, you use the safe and take good care of it until I return.\u201d He says afterward Starr told him \u201cto go and get the safe and put it in the office, and keep it and use it until he returned, which he thought would be in about thirty days; that he was sorry he did not have time to go and change the combination for me, but instructed me how to change it. He then took a key out of his pocket and gave it to me, stating it was the key to the iron box inside the safe, which I found to be correct.\u201d\n<J. H. Farnerworth, who heard the conversation between appellee, appellant and Starr, testified substantially as does appellant.\nThe safe was brought and placed in the office of appellant, and he continued to use it until it was replevied by appellee.\nHpon this evidence the court below found the issues for appellee. Taking appellee\u2019s own testimony, we do not think he established any right to the possession of the safe. By his own testimony it appears that Starr directed the safe to be brought to appellant\u2019s office, and there to remain until his (Starr\u2019s) return. As against appellee, we think appellant had the clear right to the possession of the safe. Hpon the whole evidence there is not room for a possible doubt on this point.\nThe judgment of the County Court is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reeves, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. W. F. Foster, for appellant.",
      "Ho appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Grant Parker v. J. D. Foster.\nReplevin\u2014Safe\u2014Evidence.\nIn an action of replevin brought to recover a safe, this court holds that the judgment for plaintiff is not sustained by the evidence as between the parties, the right of possession being in the defendant.\n[Opinion filed January 10, 1889.]\nAppeal from the County Court of Richland County; the Hon. Theodore A. Fritchey, Judge, presiding.\nMr. W. F. Foster, for appellant.\nHo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0586-01",
  "first_page_order": 582,
  "last_page_order": 584
}
