{
  "id": 5191845,
  "name": "Travelers' Preferred Accident Association v. C. S. McKinney",
  "name_abbreviation": "Travelers' Preferred Accident Ass'n v. McKinney",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "631",
  "last_page": "632",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 631"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "57 Ill. App. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        856691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/57/0141-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 1913,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1561730046809679
    },
    "sha256": "7d096d16a2aa4c13738c1aef313753cf095e12cd73b17ecc1d7aaba601b3a3f9",
    "simhash": "1:05cceafec8a76d58",
    "word_count": 328
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Travelers\u2019 Preferred Accident Association v. C. S. McKinney."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe main facts of this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court in the same cause when it was previously before us, reported in 57 Ill. App. 141.\nIt is not here denied that a recovery for a small amount, equal to the weekly benefit of $25 for a period of four days, according to one theory, or of three to four weeks, according to another theory, would have been proper, but it is insisted, upon a most critical analysis of the facts testified to, that a recovery so great as $652.55, covering a period of disability of about half a year, is grossly excessive.\nWhether so or not, turns wholly upon whether the appellee permitted himself to be cured as soon as he might.\nUpon that question the evidence was of that conflicting and irreconcilable character which brings the case clearly within the rule that the verdict alone is conclusive of it.\nFurthermore, this was the second trial of the cause, and resulted in a verdict for substantially the same amount as the first one, and it is not at all likely that another trial would bring a materially different result.\nThe evidence on both sides was wholly by depositions; there were no instructions offered or given; there is no question of law argued, and there is none in the case so far as we observe.\nWe must affirm the judgment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis Schissler and John C. Wallis, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Williams, Linden, Dempsey & Gott, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Travelers\u2019 Preferred Accident Association v. C. S. McKinney.\n1. Verdicts\u2014WTiera Conal'usive.\u2014Where the evidence produced upon a trial is conflicting and irreconcilable the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed.\nAssumpsit, on an insurance policy. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edmund W. Burke, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 28, 1896.\nLouis Schissler and John C. Wallis, attorneys for appellant.\nWilliams, Linden, Dempsey & Gott, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0631-01",
  "first_page_order": 629,
  "last_page_order": 630
}