{
  "id": 5201330,
  "name": "Pennsylvania Company v. Kenwood Bridge Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pennsylvania Co. v. Kenwood Bridge Co.",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "145",
  "last_page": "146",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 145"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "86 Ill. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2772590
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/86/0071-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 1705,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5213506656179568
    },
    "sha256": "10a85d9b237687c2f640f12a25c69dd1602a57c640a6f3a13153cf64ab10b7d7",
    "simhash": "1:56f75f8b1c6f2c04",
    "word_count": 280
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pennsylvania Company v. Kenwood Bridge Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThis is an action of assumpsit to recover for damage to merchandise, founded upon a shipping receipt or bill of lading given by the appellant to the appellee, as follows :\n\u201c Grand Grossing,, December 20, .1892.\nKeceived from Kenwood Bridge Company, by the Pennsylvania Company, the following articles, in apparent good order, to be delivered in like good order,, without unnecessary delay, marked Schailer & Schinglau, care Illinois Steel Company, South Chicago, Illinois. Description : Three top sections of plate, weight 5, 115; five bottom sections, weight 17, 065; two top sections, weight 3, 410. Total, 25, 590. F. E. Sawyer, agent. Prepaid 5-\u201412. Car 243, P. Y. & A.\u201d\nThere is no question in the case as to the fact or amount of damage, and that it happened by attempting to cross a bridge with which the freight came in contact by reason of the load being so high. Many questions are made in the briefs upon the subject of evidence and instructions which we shall not consider.\nIf errors were committed, they are but theoretical. The right of the appellee to recover is clear, and we will follow the precedent, Merchant\u2019s Despatch v. Theilbau, 86 Ill. 71 and affirm the judgment. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Geo. Willard, attorney for appellant.",
      "Barker & Church, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pennsylvania Company v. Kenwood Bridge Company.\n1. Judgments\u2014Warranted by Law and Evidence.\u2014A judgment warranted by the law and the evidence will be affirmed.\nAssumpsit, for damage to merchandise. Appeal from the Circuit. Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles G. Neely, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1897.\nGeo. Willard, attorney for appellant.\nBarker & Church, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0145-01",
  "first_page_order": 143,
  "last_page_order": 144
}
