{
  "id": 5069768,
  "name": "Henry Bahe and Wilhelmina Fisher v. N. A. Baker",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bahe v. Baker",
  "decision_date": "1892-10-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "578",
  "last_page": "579",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 578"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 140,
    "char_count": 2045,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.436,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33370285294625285
    },
    "sha256": "e16fc9ce2cc0f1c42599795f54af4be3a8580c14327140f462c2a7cfa1ede4ea",
    "simhash": "1:a8bf84cd786c8b99",
    "word_count": 352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:00:30.730018+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Bahe and Wilhelmina Fisher v. N. A. Baker."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Watermau, J.\nThis was an action of trespass for taking and carrying away certain personal property.\nAt the conclusion of the evidence the court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiffs, saying that the only question to be considered was as to the value of the horses taken. The evidence was not conclusive that the plaintiff below was either actually or constructively in possession of the horses when the defendant below. Henry Bahe, took them into his custody; nor did the plaintiff conclusively establish either a general or qualified property in the horses.\nBoth his title and his possession were in dispute, and the jury ought not to have been instructed to find for him.\nThe plaintiff below ought not to have been permitted to testify in chief that the defendants took some horses belonging to him.\u201d He brought suit for the taking of certain definitely described horses, and his evidence should not only have been confined to these, but his testimony as to what the defendants below did, should have been definite\u2014 not a statement of what was a mere conclusion he had formed from what had been told to him. The objection made to this testimony should have been sustained.\nThe judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Watermau, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Rufus Kiug, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Mr. D\u201e W. Proctor, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Bahe and Wilhelmina Fisher v. N. A. Baker.\nTrespass\u2014Talcing and Carrying Away of Personal Property.\n1. Where suit is brought for the taking of certain definitely described horses, the plaintiff should not testify that \u201cthe defendants took some horses belonging to him,\u201d and his testimony as to what the defendants below did, should be definite, not a statement of what was a mere conclusion formed by him from what had been told him.\n2. The jury in such case should not be instructed to find for the plaintiff, both title and possession being in dispute.\n[Opinion filed October 17, 1892.]\nHr error to the Superior Courtof Cook County; the Hon. Joh\u00edt P\u201e Altgeld, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Rufus Kiug, for plaintiffs in error.\nMr. D\u201e W. Proctor, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0578-01",
  "first_page_order": 574,
  "last_page_order": 575
}