{
  "id": 2595180,
  "name": "Illinois Car and Equipment Co. v. Alonzo Weibel, Use of, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Illinois Car & Equipment Co. v. Weibel",
  "decision_date": "1902-04-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "490",
  "last_page": "492",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 Ill. App. 490"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 215,
    "char_count": 2516,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "sha256": "e475de33b741e94c6e4c60ac8257a345da1355fb91db0d8796ba580e7c7bc7cb",
    "simhash": "1:59223ea24c191fd8",
    "word_count": 430
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:26.777914+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Illinois Car and Equipment Co. v. Alonzo Weibel, Use of, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit.\nThe bill of particulars filed by appellee for work actually done amounted to.... ..............$201 85\n\u201c For profit that could have been made under contract plaintiff refused to permit the completion of................................... 23 30\u201d\n$22.5 15\nThe plaintiff admitted\" having received a payment of $76.96. The defendant paid orders given by plaintiff to men employed by him. It produced lists of these with names of persons to whom payments were made and amount paid to each. Upon the trial these were shown to the plaintiff, and he was asked if they were correct; he replied:\n\u201c A good many of them are, yes. Some of them ain\u2019t. The men\u2019s names is all correct.\u201d\n\u201c Q. I said the amounts. A. That one with the seven car builders on it, $12.25, that was not to be charged to me at all. Them seven men was sent to help me put hay racks, but I couldn\u2019t get no stuff for them to work with.\u201d\nThe lists of payments produced, as so made, amounted to $146.80; deducting the $12.25 objected to by plaintiff, leaves $134.65 paid by defendant; taking this from his claim for work done of $201.85, leaves $67.20 due plaintiff.\nWe see no reason for allowing to him unearned profits.\nHe acquiesced in the termination of the contract.\nIt appears probable that the defendant should have been allowed the $12.25 paid to seven men sent, as plaintiff says, to help him \u201c put hay racks; \u201d but the jury have not credited this su,m.\nTaking his own testimony he is entitled to but $67.20, and if he shall within ten days remit to that sum judgment will be affirmed for that amount, otherwise the cause will be reversed and remanded.\nBeversed and remanded unless remittitur to $67.20 be made; if made, affirmed for $67.20.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McCordio & Sheriff, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Walter GL Kraft, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Illinois Car and Equipment Co. v. Alonzo Weibel, Use of, etc.\n1. Verdicts\u2014Bemittitur in the Appellate Court When Excessive.\u2014 Where the evidence in the record shows the verdict to be excessive the excess may be remitted in the Appellate Court and the judgment affirmed for the balance.\nAssumpsit. \u2014Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1901.\nReversed and remanded, unless a remittitur is filed, as suggested, then to be affirmed for $67.20,\nOpinion filed April 4, 1902.\nMcCordio & Sheriff, attorneys for appellant.\nWalter GL Kraft, attorney for appellee.\nRemittitur filed April 4, and cause affirmed April 4,1902."
  },
  "file_name": "0490-01",
  "first_page_order": 516,
  "last_page_order": 518
}