{
  "id": 5081068,
  "name": "John W. Geist and George F. Geist v. George Pollock",
  "name_abbreviation": "Geist v. Pollock",
  "decision_date": "1895-04-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "429",
  "last_page": "430",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 429"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "72 Pa. St. 471",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        434701
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/72/0471-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Gray 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gray",
      "case_ids": [
        2082500
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/76/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Vt. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        4428419
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/26/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ohio St. 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "case_ids": [
        894691
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-st/28/0388-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3060263
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/148/0179-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 U. S. 604",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3546300
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/137/0604-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 U. S. 699",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        4683
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/100/0699-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5447269
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/138/0158-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 308,
    "char_count": 3725,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3372052559935144e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7917774356728906
    },
    "sha256": "df988a4841a7aa0230cc179739dacc62749b837d185a08deaf450e67501d5471",
    "simhash": "1:1f371bf8fbad902a",
    "word_count": 678
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John W. Geist and George F. Geist v. George Pollock."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellants\u2019 counsel assign as error that the attorney of the appellee made improper statements to the jury in his closing argument, but no such reason for a new trial was assigned in the motion therefor, and if there ever was any thing in the point, it was waived. Hintz v. Graupner, 138 Ill. 158.\nThis action is one o\u00ed strict law, with little to recommend it in foro conscientice.\nIn the afternoon of July 7, 1893, the appellee deposited with the appellants $500, and took this receipt:\n\u201c Chicago, July 7, 1893.\nEec. from George Pollock five hundred dollars on deposit. $500. Geist Bbos.\u201d\nIt was put in the safe. The appellee and another man slept in the building. There was no watchman. That night the safe was broken open, this and other money taken.\nThe appellee testified\u2014and in this was not contradicted\u2014 that on two former occasions he had deposited money with the appellants\u2014for whom he worked\u2014and it had been returned to him, not in the same money, but in other currency, and a check. And he also testified that he told Mr. John Geist at the time that he would not want the money until the first of March, 1894.\nThe only question in the case is whether a verdict for the appellee is justified by the evidence.\nIf the deposit was a special one\u2014the same package to be \u25a0 returned\u2014the appellants are not liable. But on that subject nothing was said; and considering how the former deposits wfere repaid, that the contract implied by the words of the receipt would be performed by the return of five hundred dollars in any kind of legal tender, and the ordinary conduct of merchants\u2014which the appellants were\u2014the jury were : warranted in concluding that the appellants did not intend to keep the money intact, but probably would have put it in bank to their own credit the next day, if it had not been stolen. If so, the deposit was a loan which the appellants must repay, whatever has become of the money.\nThe judgment is affirmed, with the same disposition on our part, that Beatrice came to bid Benedict come in to dinner. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John T. Richards, - attorney for appellants.",
      "Appellee\u2019s Brief, King & Gross and Frederick R. Babcock, Attorneys."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John W. Geist and George F. Geist v. George Pollock.\n1. Waiver\u2014Of Reasons for a New Trial.\u2014A cause for a new trial which is not stated among the reasons contained in the motion must he considered as waived, and can not be assigned as error.\n2. Bailments\u2014Special Deposits and Loans.\u2014In the afternoon, a person deposited money with a firm, taking a receipt for the same. The night following, thieves broke in and stole it. It was held that the jury were warranted in finding that the firm did not intend to keep the money intact, but would have put it in the bank to their own credit, if it had not been stolen. If so, the deposit was a loan, which the firm must repay, whatever became of the money.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Money loaned. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Abner Smith, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the Maxell term, 1895, of this court.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 22, 1895.\nJohn T. Richards, - attorney for appellants.\nAppellee\u2019s Brief, King & Gross and Frederick R. Babcock, Attorneys.\nGross negligence of a gratuitous bailee is always a question of fact; and whether or not a deposit is special or general, or gratuitous or for reward, is always a question of fact to be deduced from all the facts and circumstances in the case. Nat\u2019l Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699; Preston v. Prather, 137 U. S. 604; Doorman v. Jenkins, 29 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 132; Gray v. Merriam, 148 Ill. 179; Griffith v. Zipperwick, 28 Ohio St. 388; Carrington v. Ficklins, Ex\u2019r, 32 Grattan\u2019s Rep. 670; McDaniels v. Robinson, 26 Vt. 316; Newhall v. Paige et al., 10 Gray 366; Scott v. Nat\u2019l Bk. of Chester Valley, 72 Pa. St. 471."
  },
  "file_name": "0429-01",
  "first_page_order": 425,
  "last_page_order": 426
}