{
  "id": 4872772,
  "name": "Lester C. Seawell, Appellant, vs. The Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Seawell v. Oregon Short Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 11303",
  "first_page": "122",
  "last_page": "123",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "278 Ill. 122"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3225018
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "310"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 Ill. 538",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4819128
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/271/0538-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2968,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15416014601623493
    },
    "sha256": "7f1b39db70711d8632e1dace6b8b0d2f17b178e0ba03c9679012065f46cfbea5",
    "simhash": "1:d4a8c085b8865edb",
    "word_count": 506
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:34.034733+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lester C. Seawell, Appellant, vs. The Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Duncan\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAppellant brought an action in the municipal court of Chicago against the appellee, based on the Carmack amendment to the Hepburn act, for damages sustained by him on a shipment of sheep. The defense interposed was that appellee was not the initial carrier; that the shipment was an inter-State shipment and originated at Evergreen, Idaho, on the line of the Pacific and Idaho Northern Railway Company, The municipal court rendered judgment in favor of appellant, and appellee prosecuted an appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, where the judgment of the municipal court was affirmed. The facts in this case being similar to those in a case brought by E. Looney against the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, the two cases Were consolidated for hearing in the Appellate Court. A certificate of importance was granted and the two cases were appealed to this court and decided at the February term, 1916, in Looney v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. and Seawell v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. 271 Ill. 538. This court reversed the judgments of the Appellate and municipal courts and remanded the causes to the municipal court. On remandment the Seazuell case was re-tried and a verdict in favor of appellee was directed by the municipal court upon practically the same facts upon which it was submitted, at the first trial in that court, and judgment was entered accordingly. Appellant sued out a writ of error from the Appellate Court for the First District, where the judgment of the municipal court was affirmed and a certificate of importance granted.\nThis appeal only serves to bring before us the same questions of law and fact as were considered and decided by this court adversely to appellant\u2019s contention in Seawell v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. supra. As the parties ar\u00e9 the same in this case, the judgment of this court on the same facts and the same questions of law against this appellant on the former appeal to this court is res judicata, and those questions of law and fact cannot be further raised by appellant. Keokuk and Hamilton Bridge Co. v. People, 185 Ill. 276; Heimann v. Wilke, 219 id. 310.\nThe judgment of the Appellate Court is therefore affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Duncan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles A. Butler, for appellant.",
      "John A. Sheean, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 11303.\nJudgment affirmed.)\nLester C. Seawell, Appellant, vs. The Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, Appellee.\nOpinion filed April 19, 1917.\nRes judicata\u2014when a judgment of Supreme Court is res judicata on a second appeal. A judgment of the Supreme Court reversing a judgment and remanding the cause for new trial is res judicata on a second appeal in the same case, where the parties and all questions of law and fact are the same as on the first appeal.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District ;\u2014heard in that court on writ of error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding.\nCharles A. Butler, for appellant.\nJohn A. Sheean, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0122-01",
  "first_page_order": 122,
  "last_page_order": 123
}