{
  "id": 5160385,
  "name": "Maggie Sheffer v. Charles L. Willoughby et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sheffer v. Willoughby",
  "decision_date": "1895-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "263",
  "last_page": "264",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 263"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2039,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.203483792463421e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4762287299375369
    },
    "sha256": "9d20800a1d97ef0b21c721ecfacb0755a0e8cb36e33df667f651e463c9824ec2",
    "simhash": "1:daf79bba40381603",
    "word_count": 359
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Maggie Sheffer v. Charles L. Willoughby et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe evidence in this case is sufficient to make it a question for the jury whether the appellant was made sick by eating an oyster stew at the restaurant of the appellees, but not sufficient to warrant a charge of negligence in fact by the appellees, either in selecting the oysters, or in the manner of preparing the stew.\nThe court peremptorily instructed the jury to find for the defendants\u2014the appellees\u2014the suit being an action on the case by the appellant.\nThe appellant claims that the appellees, keeping a restaurant, are subject to the rule of law which makes innkeepers responsible for losses and injuries sustained by their guests, ETo authority is cited for that position. If it be well taken, it would logically be necessary to extend the rule to an apple woman at the end of a bridge keeping nuts and candy with her other stock, or an Italian vending popcorn from a cart at a street corner.\nLord Ellenborough held in Doe d. Pitt v. Laming, 4 Camp. 73, that a London coffee-house was not an inn; and coffeehouse and restaurant are two names for the same thing. That case is cited as authority in 1 Addison on Torts, Sec. 683.\nThe distinction seems to be between those who do and those who do not furnish \u201c every aecommodation to all persons for a night or longer.\u201d Abbott, C. J., in Thompson v. Lacy, 3 Barn. & Al. 283; 5 E. C. L. 169; which distinction gives rise to a variety of reflexions.\nThe foundation of the case of the appellant failing, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edwin F. Abbott, attorney for appellant.",
      "Duncan & Gilbert, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Maggie Sheffer v. Charles L. Willoughby et al.\n1. Restaurant\u2014Is not an Inn.\u2014A restaurant is not subject to the rule of law which make innkeepers responsible for losses and injuries sustained by then- guests.\nTrespass on the Case.\u2014Appeal' from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Abner Smith, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 12, 1895.\nEdwin F. Abbott, attorney for appellant.\nDuncan & Gilbert, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0263-01",
  "first_page_order": 261,
  "last_page_order": 262
}