{
  "id": 5498631,
  "name": "The North Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Mary Gillow",
  "name_abbreviation": "North Chicago Street Railroad v. Gillow",
  "decision_date": "1897-05-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "444",
  "last_page": "445",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "166 Ill. 444"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5176893
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/64/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5439421
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/137/0319-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 3737,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.607,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.162422468509105e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5084860159800823
    },
    "sha256": "a4b1689f5f46becefdffc781077af550ed7a8a0ddac39fed108135b2e508ba80",
    "simhash": "1:a33beab1263d9f03",
    "word_count": 646
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:05.075610+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The North Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Mary Gillow."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Carter\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe appellee brought her suit against appellant in the Superior Court of Cook county, alleging that she had received an injury to her spine, and other injuries to her person, by reason of the negligence of appellant in starting its car upon which she was a passenger, while she was in the act of alighting therefrom, which caused her to fall, producing the injuries complained of. The trial court set aside the first verdict, which was for $3750, and granted a new trial. On the second trial the jury again found the defendant guilty, and assessed the damages at $3533. The court required the plaintiff to remit down to \u00a73000, which being done, judgment was rendered for that amount.\nMuch the greater part of counsel\u2019s argument has been devoted to questions which were finally settled by the Appellate Court, and need not therefore be further referred to. But it is contended that error was committed in allowing the plaintiff, when testifying in her own behalf, to compare her physical condition at the time of the trial with what it was before the injury. She was describing the injuries which she had received, and the effect they had produced upon her body and her physical strength, and we see no impropriety in this testimony.\nThe next complaint is, that counsel for the plaintiff made improper remarks in the presence of the jury,\u2014 that is to say, in a discussion before the court, during the trial, as to what plaintiff had testified to on the former trial, counsel for the plaintiff said: \u201cThey tried to give the jury the impression that she testified before tiaat she stepped down with her left foot, when, in fact, she testified she stepped down with her right. I want to show how they try to impose on this court and jury.\u201d To which remarks of counsel, as the record shows, the defendant, by its counsel, then and there excepted. Inasmuch as counsel neither asked for nor obtained any ruling of the court in any form, nor excepted to any such ruling, we are not called upon to determine what effect the remarks in question should have upon the judgment. As said in Marder, Luse & Co. v. Leary, 137 Ill. 319, an exception to the statement of counsel meant nothing; \u201cthe court had made no ruling to which it was applicable, and if it was intended to be an objection, it was ineffectual because it was not pressed upon the attention of the judge and his ruling obtained thereon.\u201d\nIt is not contended that there was any error committed in the giving or refusing of instructions to the jury.\nThe judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Carter"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Egbert Jamieson, John A. Rose, and D. W. Munn, for appellant.",
      "John F. Waters, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The North Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Mary Gillow.\nFiled at Ottawa May 11, 1897.\n1. Evidence\u2014plaintiff in personal injury case may testify as to her physical condition before injury. A plaintiff in a personal injury case, in describing the injuries received and the effect which they produced upon her body and her physical strength, may testify as to her physical condition before and after the injury.\n2. Trial\u2014statements of counsel are ineffectual as objections unless 'ruled upon by the court. Statements of counsel during trial, to the effect that he excepts to the argument of opposing counsel, are ineffectual as exceptions unless an objection is pressed upon the attention of the court and its ruling obtained thereon, and exception is then taken to such ruling.\nNorth Chicago Street Railroad Co. v. Gillow, 64 Ill. App. 516, affirmed.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Henry V.. Freeman, Judge, presiding.\nEgbert Jamieson, John A. Rose, and D. W. Munn, for appellant.\nJohn F. Waters, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0444-01",
  "first_page_order": 444,
  "last_page_order": 445
}