{
  "id": 5538894,
  "name": "Herman Grossman et al. v. William S. Cosgrove",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grossman v. Cosgrove",
  "decision_date": "1898-10-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "383",
  "last_page": "384",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 Ill. 383"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. App. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5174989
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/75/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 Ill. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3188081
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/168/0249-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2514,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.557,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.910444093458357e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4611363442424636
    },
    "sha256": "e8506cc90e47b796f6d8930b32f74ba34edaa87830eaaa30785a41942211b85e",
    "simhash": "1:589b99b29a344652",
    "word_count": 420
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:51.572558+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Herman Grossman et al. v. William S. Cosgrove."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Carter\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment of the superior court of Cook county in favor of appellee. William S. Cosgrove, the appellee, was permanently injured in an elevator through the negligence of appellants\u2019 servant, and was awarded \u00a75000 damages. The only question argued in the Appellate Court was that the damages were excessive. That court found against appellants\u2019 contention, and they have re-filed their Appellate Court brief in this court, raising the same question here. As this is a question of fact it is settled by the judgment of the Appellate Court, and there is therefore no question presented of which we have jurisdiction. In this state of the case we think the request of appellee that appellants be adjudged to pay damages for the delay should be granted. It is impossible a reversal of the judgment of the Appellate Court should have been hoped for on this appeal. It must therefore have been prosecuted merely for delay, and appellants should pay damages for such delay, under the statute. Calumet Electric Street Railway Co. v. Lewis, 168 Ill. 249.\nThe judgment of the Appellate Court will accordingly be affirmed, and judgment will be entered in this court against appellants and in favor of appellee for five per cent of the judgment so sought to be reversed,-\u2014that is, for $250,\u2014for such delay, in addition to costs of the appeal, and execution will be awarded therefor.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Carter"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hofheimer & Pflaum, for appellants.",
      "James J. Barbour, and Alfred E. McCordic, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Herman Grossman et al. v. William S. Cosgrove.\nOpinion filed October 24, 1898.\n1. Appeals and errors\u2014Supreme Court cannot consider question whether damages \u00abere excessive. The question whether the damages awarded by a jury in a personal injury case are excessive is finally settled by the Appellate Court\u2019s judgment of affirmance, and is one which the Supreme Court cannot consider.\n2. Same\u2014when damages will be awarded for delay. Damages will be awarded, on motion of the appellee, where it appears that the appeal must have been prosecuted merely for delay, the only question argued in the Appellate Court being a question of fact, upon which the judgment of that court was conclusive.\nGrossman v. Cosgrove, 75 Ill. App. 385, 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. James Goggin, Judge, presiding.\nHofheimer & Pflaum, for appellants.\nJames J. Barbour, and Alfred E. McCordic, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0383-01",
  "first_page_order": 383,
  "last_page_order": 384
}