{
  "id": 5158862,
  "name": "St. Bernard Coal Co. v. Digory W. Baker and Henry Baker",
  "name_abbreviation": "St. Bernard Coal Co. v. Baker",
  "decision_date": "1895-11-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "451",
  "last_page": "452",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 451"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2151,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33924796387743067
    },
    "sha256": "5fcf1893e60e3e149aea4539f486ccbf0f26611d96e81171b92c5356484c51e7",
    "simhash": "1:179a512098a690f4",
    "word_count": 377
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "St. Bernard Coal Co. v. Digory W. Baker and Henry Baker."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe determination of this cause depends upon the question of fact which has been found adversely to appellant.\nWe are unable to say that there was any such preponderance of evidence in favor of appellant as would warrant a reversal of this judgment. We see no objections to the fifth instruction, of which appellant complains. It correctly states the law, and did not, so far as we can see, have a tendency to divert the jury from the main controversy of fact. The damages are within the showing made by the evidence.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John H. Bradley, attorney for appellant.",
      "Edward W. Cullen, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "St. Bernard Coal Co. v. Digory W. Baker and Henry Baker.\n1. Verdict\u2014Conclusive if Sustained by the Evidence.\u2014A judgment founded upon a finding of facts will not be reversed unless such finding is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nAssumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Gibbons, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 18, 1895.\nStatement oe the Case.\nPrior to May 4, 1894, plaintiff had sold and shipped to the defendants, coal, for which $370.08 was then due.\nOn the 4th day of May, defendant Henry Baker gave Mr. Bridgeman, plaintiff\u2019s agent, an order for ten cars of nut coal.\nOn the 5th day of May, at the office of the agent, defendant Henry Baker ordered fifteen cars of lump coal, and added to the previous order of nut five cars more of nut, making in all fifteen cars each of nut and lump.\nThere is a controversy as to the fact of an acceptance of the orders; the defendant claiming that Mr. Bridgeman accepted, while plaintiff contends there was no acceptance, but that the orders given were merely sent into the mines for acceptance and were not accepted.\nThe plaintiff sued for the $370.08, which is admitted, and the defendant made a counter claim for damages for nondelivery of seven hundred and fifty tons of lump coal. There was a trial by jury and a verdict rendered for the defendants for $450.\nJohn H. Bradley, attorney for appellant.\nEdward W. Cullen, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0451-01",
  "first_page_order": 449,
  "last_page_order": 450
}