{
  "id": 5198617,
  "name": "Peter Fox v. The Chicago & South Side Rapid Transit R. R. Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fox v. Chicago & South Side Rapid Transit R. R.",
  "decision_date": "1897-01-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "417",
  "last_page": "419",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 417"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "161 Ill. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3123474
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/161/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 Ill. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2865844
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/113/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 Ill. 188",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3134112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/159/0188-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5318751
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0494-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 Ill. 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        828315
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/111/0413-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5257364
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/35/0346-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 3704,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3655039347853871
    },
    "sha256": "2ad66eb1d3755a1b1df0acb97fab7910be1a2e2c201ecb46ea90c8dc5ed84ff4",
    "simhash": "1:9f7330bb140db398",
    "word_count": 636
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peter Fox v. The Chicago & South Side Rapid Transit R. R. Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the\" Court.\nAppellant says :\n\u201c 1. The judgment is contrary to the law and evidence. II. The court below admitted improper evidence on behalf of appellee and over the objection of appellant.\nIII. The court below excluded proper evidence offered by appellant.\nIY. The court below erred in giving to the jury the ten instructions, and each of them, on behalf of appellee.\u201d\nAs only the second is argued, the others, it is presumed, are abandoned.\nTestimony as to what the value of real property has been, is, and will be, and what damage, if any, is done to it by the construction of a railroad, is, in the nature of the case, almost entirely a matter of opinion, about which the judgment of competent men will, to some extent, vary.\nAs to these matters, the opinion of experts is admissible. Ottawa Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Graham, 35 Ill. 346; Johnson v. Freeport and Miss. Ry. Co., 111 Ill. 413; Galena & Southern Wisconsin R. R. Co. v. Haslam, 73 Ill. 494; Lovell v. Drainage District, 159 Ill. 188; Spear v. Drainage Commissioners, 113 Ill. 632; Green v. City of Chicago, 97 Ill. 371; L. B. & M. R. Co. v. Winslow, 66 Ill. 221; C. P. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Nix, 137 Ill. 143; Metropolitan & W. S. Elevated Ry. Co. v. Dickinson, 161 Ill. 22.\nThe evidence was such that we do not think that the judgment should be reversed.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douthaet & Garvy, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Walker, Judd & Hawley and Edward C. Nichols, attorneys for appellee; William W. Gurley, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peter Fox v. The Chicago & South Side Rapid Transit R. R. Co.\n1. Expert Testimony\u2014Ms toValues of Real Estate.\u2014Testimony as to the value of real property, and what damage is done to it by the construction of a railroad, is almost entirely a matter of opinion about which the judgment of competent men will, to some extent, vary, and as to which the opinion of experts is admissible.\nTrespass oil the Case.\u2014Damages to real property by the construction of a railroad. 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 January 21, 1897.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis was a suit in case brought by the appellant, Peter Fox, against the appellee to recover for alleged damages to certain real estate situated at the southwest corner of 63d street and G-race avenue, in the city of Chicago.\nThe property was said to have been damaged by the construction and operation of an elevated railroad by the appellee in 63d street immediately in front of the property aforesaid.\nThere is a single count in the declaration which avers, inter alia, \u201c that by reason of the construction and operation of the said elevated road egress and ingress to plaintiff\u2019s property has been rendered difficult and dangerous, and his use of 63d street damaged and destroyed, and plaintiff has lost thereby the ordinary uses of said street; that defendant has stopped and run backward and forward these trains and engines with great noise of whistles blowing, bells ringing, escaping steam, grinding and rumbling of wheels by plaintiff\u2019s property, by means of which plaintiff\u2019s property is damaged and destroyed; by means of the several premises plaintiff\u2019s property, rents and improvements have and will be damaged in amount \u00a775,000.\u201d\nWitnesses for both plaintiff and defendant were permitted to testify to their opinion as to the past, present and future value of appellant\u2019s property, and the effect upon the value thereof of the railroad constructed by appellee.\nDefendant filed a plea of general issue. The cause was tried before a jury, the verdict being not guilty.\nDouthaet & Garvy, attorneys for appellant.\nWalker, Judd & Hawley and Edward C. Nichols, attorneys for appellee; William W. Gurley, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0417-01",
  "first_page_order": 415,
  "last_page_order": 417
}