{
  "id": 837681,
  "name": "Louis Daube v. Walter Tennison, by his next friend",
  "name_abbreviation": "Daube v. Tennison",
  "decision_date": "1895-01-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "210",
  "last_page": "212",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "154 Ill. 210"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5098745
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/54/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5447219
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/138/0370-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 Ill. 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5471145
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/150/0546-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 315,
    "char_count": 5135,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7027234729171525e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7011128834152107
    },
    "sha256": "a0e31b084f4486b737e247fe0b6426f59943d8642e57699d6ac8655277fda352",
    "simhash": "1:e6b26bc21835c192",
    "word_count": 889
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:39:41.318429+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louis Daube v. Walter Tennison, by his next friend."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Baker, J.:\nThis is an action on the case, instituted by appellee, by his next friend, against appellant, in the circuit court of Cook county, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him through the negligence of appellant\u2019s servant. The cause was twice tried before a jury, and in each instance the verdict was in favor of appellee, whose damages on the second trial were assessed at \u00a71750, of which amount \u00a7500 was remitted, and judgment rendered against appellant for \u00a71250. On appeal to the Appellate Court that judgment was affirmed.\nThe original bill of exceptions in this case was taken to the Appellate Court under a stipulation that it might be \u201cinserted in the record,\u201d and that court, in its opinion, gave as an additional reason for affirming the judgment of the circuit court that the stipulation provided as it did, instead of that the original bill of exceptions might be inserted in the transcript of the record, as provided by the statute, and this portion of the opinion is seriously ob- \u25a0 jected to by counsel for appellant. The stipulation manifestly meant \u201ctranscript of record,\u201d and not the \u201crecord\u201d itself. That was plainly the intention of the parties. (Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Hessions, 150 Ill. 546.) Errors cannot, however, be assigned on the opinion of the Appellate Court. But even if we look to the \u201copinion,\u201d it affirmatively appears that that court did consider the bill of exceptions as a part of the transcript, and considered the assignments of error.\nBy the judgments of the circuit and Appellate Courts the facts in this case have been conclusively settled adversely to appellant. Appellee was injured by a runaway team of horses attached to a wagon, and the special findings of the jury were that the injury was caused by the negligence of the driver in not hitching or fastening the team.\nThe record discloses no substantial error in the rulings of the trial court in regard to the admission of testimony.\nIt is contended by appellant that the trial court erred in modifying the third and fifth instructions asked in his behalf. The modification of the third offered instruction was made by adding to the following portion of it the words in italics : \u201cAnd if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the mother of the plaintiff was in charge of him at and previous to the happening of such accident, and that at such time she was not in the exercise of due care and caution to avoid such accident, and that her want of care and caution contribicted to the injury, then the jury will find the defendant not guilty.\u201d The instruction did not state the law correctly, either before or after its modification, (Chicago City Railway Co. v. Wilcox, 138 Ill. 370,) and even as modified and given to the jury it stated the law much more favorably to appellant than he was entitled to have it stated, and he is therefore in no position to complain.\nIn his fifth offered instruction appellant asked the court to tell the jury, that if his horses were frightened by the noise and escaping steam of a locomotive engine, and in consequence thereof, without any negligence on the part of himself or his agents, the team ran away, he would not be liable. This the court did, after having inserted the word \u201csolely,\u201d so as to make it read, \u201cand in consequence thereof solely,\u201d etc. There was no pretence by appellant that there was any other reason for the team running away than being frightened by the escaping steam, and we fail to see how the addition of the word \u201csolely\u201d could have injuriously affected his rights.\nThe judgment of the Appellate Court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Baker, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. M. Shaffner, for appellant.",
      "E. W. Adkinson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis Daube v. Walter Tennison, by his next friend.\nFiled at Ottawa January 15, 1895.\n1. Appeal \u2014 stipulation that hill of exceptions may he \u201cinserted in the record.\" A stipulation that the original bill of exceptions may be \u201cinserted in the record,\u201d means the \u201ctranscript of the record,\u201d and not the record itself.\n2. Same \u2014 error not assignable on opinion of Appellate Court. Error cannot be assigned in this court on the opinion of the Appellate Court.\n3. Instructions \u2014 that negligence of child\u2019s mother will defeat recovery, erroneous. An instruction in an action by a child for personal injuries, that if plaintiff\u2019s mother, in charge of him at the time of the accident, did not exercise due care and caution to avoid the injury, and her want of care and caution contributed to it, the defendant should be found not guilty, is incorrect, but being too favorable to the defendant he cannot complain of it.\n4. Same \u2014 limiting cause of accident \u2014 when not error. An insertion by the court in a requested instruction, of a word limiting the cause of the running away of a team to a certain fact, is not prejudicial error, where there is no claim that there was any other cause.\nDaube v. Tennison, 54 Ill. App. 290, affirmed.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District; \u2014 heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding.\nB. M. Shaffner, for appellant.\nE. W. Adkinson, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0210-01",
  "first_page_order": 210,
  "last_page_order": 212
}