{
  "id": 5204696,
  "name": "Edward Carter v. James Penn",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carter v. Penn",
  "decision_date": "1897-02-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "420",
  "last_page": "421",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 420"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1879,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "sha256": "8eadef86c0bfb0b6008d170174a516942017661bf0617faa010994b7726cc2fc",
    "simhash": "1:da8d06a858ddafc2",
    "word_count": 312
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward Carter v. James Penn."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellant operated a coal mine; appellee was in his employ, and while engaged in repairing a signal wire in the shaft of the mine, was struck and injured by an ascending cage.\nHe obtained judgment against appellant in the sum of $300, upon the ground the cage was put in motion through the personal negligence of the appellant.\nThe only alleged error pointed out and discussed in the brief for the appellant is, the verdict of the jury was against the evidence.\nOther errors were formally assigned, but are deemed abandoned by reason of the failure to rely upon them in the brief.\nWe have carefully read and considered the testimony and the argument of counsel thereon.\nThere seems no substantial ground for the contention that appellee was not in the line of his duty at the time, or that he failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety.\nThe jury, in answer to a special interrogatory, found the injury was the result of the personal negligence of appellant.\nThis was the frictional point of fact.\nThe evidence was conflicting. After mature consideration we are of opinion we would not Be authorized in saying the verdict and judgment is manifestly wrong.\nThere appears no reason we should extend the opinion by entering upon a discussion of the testimony.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Prettyman & Yelde, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Hammond & Wyeth, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward Carter v. James Penn.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Errors not Argued Deemed Abandoned.\u2014Errors formally assigned will be considered as abandoned where the appellant fails to mention them in his brief.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Tazewell County; the Hon. Nathaniel W. Green, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the November term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 25, 1897.\nPrettyman & Yelde, attorneys for appellant.\nHammond & Wyeth, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0420-01",
  "first_page_order": 418,
  "last_page_order": 419
}