{
  "id": 5201716,
  "name": "Frank E. Baker v. Royal E. Deane and George G. Brooks",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Deane",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "613",
  "last_page": "615",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 613"
    }
  ],
  "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. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3123609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/161/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 Ill. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3103569
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/165/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5156685
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/60/0398-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 2926,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1563239787338953
    },
    "sha256": "1678a44ca44c73822e1c588e8ba8f925fe7d466e57c643c2db5c835917762737",
    "simhash": "1:fb514447386bbe69",
    "word_count": 525
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank E. Baker v. Royal E. Deane and George G. Brooks."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion op the Court.\nThe appellant went to the store of the appellees, \u201c who conduct and sell general restaurant furnishings, cooking utensils, ranges and general work,\u201d etc. A foreman named Martin was on the fourth floor in a manufacturing department in which tin was used. The appellant wanted some strips of tin, and on the main floor applied to a salesman named Eicketts for them.\nHere the dispute begins. Baker says that Eicketts said, \u201c Go up on the top floor, and let the foreman cut them out for you;\u201d to which Baker replied, \u201c It is a small matter. I don\u2019t want to go up four or five flights of stairs; you can send the boy up and have them cut,\u201d and Eicketts answered, \u201c He ver mind, come over here; I\u2019ll take you up in the elevator.\nThat Baker then said \u201c very well,\u201d and followed Eicketts to an elevator. Eicketts tells substantially the same story to the end of the direction by him to Baker to go up for the strips, and that then Baker said he didn\u2019t wish to walk upstairs, and wanted to know if Eicketts would take him up in the elevator; to which Eicketts answered that they didn\u2019t have a passenger elevator, and Baker said \u201cWell, I have rode on it before. Start me up.\u201d\nThey did go to the elevator, which was for freight, not passengers, and Eicketts pushed up a sliding door, and was doing what was necessary to bring the platform from above to the level of that floor, when Baker stepped by him into the shaft, and fell to the basement.\nBaker testified that the place was dark, and he had never been there before. On both these points he was contra-dieted by a strong preponderance of the evidence, but upon. his own version it was his own want of ordinary care in passing by Bicketts into the dark which led to his misfortune.\nAs upon the evidence the appellant ought not to recover, it matters not what, if any, errors were committed upon instructions. Ennis v. Pullman\u2019s P. C. Co., 60 Ill. App. 398; S. C., 165 Ill. 161.\nWhether the affidavits furnished any ground for a new trial we will not inquire, as they are not in the abstract. City Electric Ry. v. Jones, 161 Ill. 47. The judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ferguson & Goodnow, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Oliver & Meoartney, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank E. Baker v. Royal E. Deane and George G. Brooks.\n1. Instructions\u2014Error Without Injury.\u2014Where, upon the evidence a plaintiff could not recover, it matters not so far as he is concerned, what, if any, errors were committed upon instructions.\n2. Errors\u2014Must be Disclosed by Abstract.\u2014Where affidavits filed in support of a motion for a new trial are notin the abstract, a court of appeal will not ii.q lire whether they showed ground for a new trial or not.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion tiled March 29, 1897.\nFerguson & Goodnow, attorneys for appellant.\nOliver & Meoartney, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0613-01",
  "first_page_order": 611,
  "last_page_order": 613
}