{
  "id": 5191137,
  "name": "Frank H. Hebard and Romaine Blakeslee, copartners, etc., as Hebard & Blakeslee, v. Ella Riegel",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hebard v. Riegel",
  "decision_date": "1897-01-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "584",
  "last_page": "586",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 584"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. App. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5053314
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/43/0609-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3851,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.660507323032941e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49175241490913174
    },
    "sha256": "9b18d08640131215b2a54a53003f9f4e1af65c9843dc3c703dc094d62101f6a3",
    "simhash": "1:2cd0473aeb186c45",
    "word_count": 676
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank H. Hebard and Romaine Blakeslee, copartners, etc., as Hebard & Blakeslee, v. Ella Riegel."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nOctober 16, 1893, the appellee, with two companions, arrived in Chicago by the Pennsylvania railroad, and the checks for their luggage were delivered to the appellants^ who were expressmen and delivered trunks from depots to hotels. They received the luggage, but did not deliver her trunk at the hotel designated.\n, The circumstances of the loss need not be stated; they do not indicate any moral delinquency by the appellants or their servants.\nThe court instructed the jury that the appellants were liable only \u201c as carriers of freight and not of baggage.\u201d Whether that is a correct statement of the law applicable to carriers of passengers\u2019 luggage from the depot of one passenger carrier to that of another, or to or from such depots from or to hotels or private houses, may be doubted. The circumstances notify them that they are carrying the luggage of one who has it as such passenger. Having such notice, the expressman has the same notice that a passenger carrier has of the contents of the luggage, and his liability should be governed by the same rule. The only contest here, is, first, whether the contents of the trunk\u2014being only such as a lady having a fair share of the luxuries of life would carry when visiting the World\u2019s Fair\u2014were such as the appellants would be responsible for; and, second, whether her testimony\u2014;she not being a dealer\u2014was competent as to value.\nFlow on the first point\u2014whether as carrier of freight or passenger luggage\u2014the appellants had notice that it was the luggage of a passenger, that it was an even chance that the passenger was a lady, and thus they, in carrying her luggage, took the risk that she would carry luggage corresponding to her condition in life; and therefore they can not set up as a defense that some of the articles were not, in the absence of notice of the contents, proper freight or baggage, because the circumstances gave notice, and the contents were not of kind or value unusual. Hutchinson on Carriers, Sec. 61, n. 3.\nAside from the detail which the appellee gave of her experience, she is presumed to know the value of her own belongings. Parmalee v. Raymond, 43 Ill. App. 609.\nThere is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Newell & Heldman and James H. Van Horn, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Charles B. Wood and Horade S. Oakley, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank H. Hebard and Romaine Blakeslee, copartners, etc., as Hebard & Blakeslee, v. Ella Riegel.\n1. Expressmen\u2014liability for Loss of Trunk\u2014Notice of Contents.\u2014 An expressman who transports a trunk, knowing it to be the luggage of a passenger, can not set up as a defense in a suit for the value of such trank and its contents, where they correspond with the condition in life \u25a0of the passenger, that some of the articles were not proper freight or baggage, because the circumstances give notice.\n3. Same\u2014When liable as Carrier of Baggage.\u2014Expressmen transporting the luggage of passengers from or to the depot of a carrier of passengers, are liable for injury to, or loss of such luggage, as carriers of baggage and not as carriers of freight. The circumstances notify them that they are carrying the luggage of some one who has it as a passenger; they have the same notice that a passenger carrier has of the contents of the luggage, and their liability should be governed by the same rule.\n3. Evidence\u2014Owner May Swear to Value of Property.\u2014A person suing an expressman for the loss of a trunk and its contents may properly be allowed to testify to the value thereof, for a person is presumed to know the value of his own belongings.\nTrespass on the Case, for the loss of a trank and contents. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 7, 1897.\nNewell & Heldman and James H. Van Horn, attorneys for appellants.\nCharles B. Wood and Horade S. Oakley, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0584-01",
  "first_page_order": 582,
  "last_page_order": 584
}