{ "id": 1673354, "name": "Henry Horn v. Mary Yates", "name_abbreviation": "Horn v. Yates", "decision_date": "1900-09-08", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "588", "last_page": "590", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "90 Ill. App. 588" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "70 Ill. App. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 Ill. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 Ill. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3123609 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/161/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5114749 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/51/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5293536 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/42/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ill. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 Ill. App. 616", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 863715 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/23/0616-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ill. App. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 286, "char_count": 3428, "ocr_confidence": 0.518, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.06328264698057685 }, "sha256": "fee1521d24d0a1fe9b092dd14f3abc960448f5fd65e8ebfd5a9e15534e87e9f4", "simhash": "1:fe7a16e568e45ec0", "word_count": 610 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:41:07.083929+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Henry Horn v. Mary Yates." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Worthington\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellee, widow of William Yates, sues to recover damages for the death of her husband, caused by falling into a \u00a3\u2018 sump \u201d in a coal bank, into which the water drained, charging willful negligence on the part of appellant in failing to have said \u00a3\u00a3 sump \u201d securely planked.\nSection 8 of chapter 93, entitled Miners, provides that \u201c all sumps shall be securely planked over so as to prevent accidents to men.\u201d\nThe deceased was a shift hand in the 'mine and had been working there about two months. Such hands hauled timbers and props to the men, shoveled dirt, cleared obstructions from the track, etc. He was on the \u201c night shift,\u201d and on the morning of June 13th had started to go home with Owen Oonnaughty, a fellow-laborer. When they reached the bottom of the shaft Frank Rosnoski, who had charge of the pump, called to Oonnaughty and told him that the pump was out of order and that he would have to go and fix it. Oonnaughty objected, saying that he could do nothing with it. Yates said to him to go and that he would go with him. The \u201c sump \u201d was off the line of travel in the bank but had to be reached in order to fix the pump. Yates, Oonnaughty and Rosnoski went to the \u201csump\u201d and assisted in propping up the pump. The sump was from fifteen to twenty feet long and ten feet wide. There were two nlanks across the \u201c sump \u201d twelve to fifteen inches wide, which was all the covering it had.\nWhile Oonnaughty, Rosnoski and Yates were engaged in propping up the pump, a pry or lever seems to have been broken, by which Yates was thrown into the \u201c sump,\u201d the water in which was heated by exhaust steam, and from the injury then received, died a few days afterward.\nThe certificate of the judge does not state that the bill of exceptions contains all the evidence. In the absence of such a statement, the court presume that there was evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. Fuller v. Bates, 6 Ill. App. 444; First Nat. Bank of Michigan City v. Haskell, 23 Ill. App. 616; Coggshall v. Beesley, 76 Ill. 446; Miner v. Phillips, 42 Ill. 123; C., M. & St. P. R. R. Co. v. Walsh, 51 Ill. App. 584.\nThe instructions are not abstracted at all, but only referred to by pages in the record.\n\u201c Everything on which error is assigned must appear in the abstract.\u201d City Electric R. Co. v. Jones, 161 Ill. 47; Gibler v. City of Mattoon, 167 Ill. 22; Mahon v. Gaither, 70 Ill. App. 436.\nFor these reasons the judgment is affirmed.\nWe have, however, examined the evidence, as given in the bill of exceptions, and are satisfied that it supports the verdict of the jury. Nor do we find substantial error in the instructions criticised. Judgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Worthington" } ], "attorneys": [ "Benjamin W. Pope, attorney for appellant.", "W. A. Swartz and I. R. Spilman, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Henry Horn v. Mary Yates.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014 Where the Bill of Exceptions Does Not Purport to Contain All the Evidence.\u2014In the absence of a statement in a bill of exceptions that it contains all the evidence, the court \u2022will presume that there was evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict.\n2. Same \u2014Error Must Appear.\u2014Everything on which error is assigned must appear in the abstract.\nTrespass on the Case.\u2014Death from negligent act. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Perry County; the Hon. William Hartzell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1900.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 8, 1900.\nBenjamin W. Pope, attorney for appellant.\nW. A. Swartz and I. R. Spilman, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0588-01", "first_page_order": 608, "last_page_order": 610 }