{
  "id": 5099334,
  "name": "Frank Parmelee v. Bernard A. Ennis",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parmelee v. Ennis",
  "decision_date": "1894-06-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "377",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 376"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2699985
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/75/0234-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2061,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15532353430644025
    },
    "sha256": "b4efdbac8c66670d6e89404ab1771d7b19f6f0464b04a4bb9dc4efa41cf728a3",
    "simhash": "1:127d43b0102f6eac",
    "word_count": 360
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Parmelee v. Bernard A. Ennis."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee, who was plaintiff below, coming into Chicago on a railroad train, delivered to an agent of the appellant a valise, to he carried to and delivered at a particular address in the city of Chicago, and paid the charges for so carrying and delivering it. The valise became lost while in the appellant\u2019s possession, and a suit for the value of the valise and its contents was brought and a judgment recovered.\nAt the time of the delivery of the valise to appellant\u2019s agent he gave to appellee a baggage check whereon was stamped, among other things, the words \u201c Frank Parmelee Omnibus Line and Baggage Express, 132 Adams street, Chicago,\u201d and a particular number.\nIt is contended that there is no evidence to support the allegation of the declaration that the appellant was a common carrier. We do not concur in that contention, but if we did, it is too late to raise the objection for the first time in this court. Brannan v. Strauss, 75 Ill. 234.\nThe only contest on the trial was as to the amount of damages, and from the evidence we can not say that the jury came to a conclusion so clearly wrong as to warrant us in disturbing their finding. The judgment is affirmed.\nMr. Justice Gary.\nFrank Parmelee would rather lose much more than the amount of this judgment, than have to go upon the record of this court the expression of any doubt that he is a common carrier of passengers and their luggage.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard Mr. Justice Gary."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edmund Furthmann, attorney for appellant.",
      "Alexander Sullivan, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Parmelee v. Bernard A. Ennis.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014 Objections Must be Made in the Court Below.\u2014It is too late to raise the objection for the first time in the Appellate Court that there is no evidence to support certain material allegations of the declaration.\nMemorandum.\u2014Trespass on the case for lost baggage. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed June 4, 1894.\nEdmund Furthmann, attorney for appellant.\nAlexander Sullivan, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 374,
  "last_page_order": 375
}