{ "id": 2565919, "name": "Chicago Curtain Stretcher Co. v. Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co.", "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Curtain Stretcher Co. v. Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co.", "decision_date": "1903-06-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "249", "last_page": "252", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "108 Ill. App. 249" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "108 Ill. App. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2564614 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/108/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 Ill. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3142063 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/157/0506-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 406, "char_count": 7135, "ocr_confidence": 0.562, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08222969756151806 }, "sha256": "1f1a1cf602a87f48d2118c548da175d11165224723d7b513e381e05d0467b9b5", "simhash": "1:975b0f910435999d", "word_count": 1255 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:54.213761+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Chicago Curtain Stretcher Co. v. Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit to , recover for certain lumber sold and delivered. The defendant filed a plea of the general issue and also of set-off for damages sustained by reason of the refusal of appellee to furnish lumber according to an alleged contract for the sale of \u201c 500,000 feet of first and second well-seasoned, clear, basswood lumber, in widths and lengths and' upon the terms and conditions set out in certain written correspondence by and between the said plaintiff and defendant in words and figures as follows:\n'Chicago, April 15, 1899.\nChicago Curtain Stretcher Co., Chicago.\nGentlemen: We will deliver to you 450 Mof 1 ' Basswood, grade known as curtain stretcher stock, on the following conditions: 200 M to be 3 \"\u20145-\u00bd to 6 \" & 8\u00bd to 9.\" wide\u20146-7-12 & 14 \" long : 250 M 4 \" full wide and up\u20146-7-12 & 14 \" long.\nThis stock will run about 80% 12 You are to commence taking this stock about July 1st, and have one-half of the sttick moved by January 1st, 1900. Price for the stock delivered between July 1st and January 1st, to be $20 per M, F. O. B. your factory. The balance, or 250 M of this stock, is to be accepted between January 1st, and July 1st, 1900. The said 250 M delivered between January 1st and July 1st, 1900, is to be $21 per M, delivered' at your factory.\nIt is further understood that any amount over 200 M mentioned to be accepted before January 1st, shall be charged to you at $21 per M\u2014or in other words, you are to get 200 M at $20 and 250 M at $21. Of course you understand that you have a standing order for 50 M at $20, which will make a total purchase of one-half million from us. One-half at $20 and one-half at $21.\nIt is understood that we\" are to deliver this stock to you as you want it, and it is further understood that you are to accept this stock from time to time betxveen the above said dates.\nTerms 2% on 10th of month following delivery. Account not to' exceed $600 at any one time. Should account run over $600 it is agreed that Mr. Walter A. Mahr give us a personal guarantee for such amount.\nBy your acceptance and acceptance of Mr. Mahr of this communication, will answer as a contract.\nTours truly,\n\" Paepcke-Leioht Lumber Co.,\nPer Conklin.\u2019 \u201d\nTo which letter the said defendant, Chicago Curtain Stretcher Company, made the following reply :\n\u201c Chicago, Ill., Apr. 18, 1899.\nPaepcke-Leicht Lumber Co., City.,\nGentlemen : We wish to add and to form part of the contract dated the 15th inst. the words \u201cfirst and second well season clear bass wood\u201d as descriptive of\u2018the curtain stretcher stock which you are to furnish us.\nAlso the time on the ($600) credit is entirely omitted which should be (90) days from the date of invoice, as well as the credit guaranteed by our Mr. Mayr.\nWith these conditions the contract is hereby accepted.\nTours respectfully,\nChicago Curtin Stretcher Co.,\nCharles Carlson, Pres.\nW. A. Mayr.\u201d\nAnd to which last letter of defendant the plaintiff herein replied as follows, to wit:\n\u201c Chicago, April 21, 1899.\nChicago Curtain Stretcher Co., City.\nGentlemen : Replying to your favor of the 18th inst., there was nothing said in conversation between yourselves and our Mr. Wiedemann regarding 90 days terms. He understood the terms were to be the same as we have been selling you right along, and do not see why we should deviate from these. You no doubt are perfectly aware of the agreement which we have with you, which is to the- effect that you are to owe us not over $600 at any one time, without Mr. Mahr\u2019s guarantee. The understanding also was, that you no doubt would be able to discount on the 10th of the month following, purchase; however, in the event of your not being able to take advantage of the discount, we would be perfectly willing to grant you 60 days time to the amount of $600. As far as the grade is concerned, this we understand will be 1st and 2nd, same as purchased by you in the past. Yours very truly,\nPaepcke-Leicht Lumber Co.\nH. E. C. Per Conklin.\u201d\nThereafter appellant ordered and received from appellee more than 100,000 feet of lumber; of this, small portions were returned as not in accordance with the contract. This caused some friction. Appellee replied to appellant that it would \u201c continue to\u201d furnish lumber as it had agreed to, and afterward that it \u201c stood ready to fulfill the contract.\u201d Appellant made various orders which were not filled. Finally appellee brought suit for the price of lumber admitted to have been delivered; against which claim appellant insists it is entitled to be allowed by way of recoupment the entire purchase price and also about $1,000 by way of set-off for damages sustained by reason of the failure of appellee to fulfill the contract alleged by appellant to have been entered into.\nA modified acceptance of a proposition is in effect a rejection of the offer. Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Prentiss, 157 Ill. 506-514; Kansas City Ry. Co. v. McGuire Manufacturing Co., 108 Ill. App. 258.\nThe three letters written between April 15th and April 21st did not create a contract. There is not in them anything more than a modified acceptance of propositions. Appellant\u2019s plea of set-off and its insistence here are that the orders by it given after April 21st were an acceptance of the offer of appellee and created a contract.\nIf this be so, the question is, what is the contract so made ? Each party understood there was a contract; the difference was and is as to' its terms.\nThe last letter written by appellant contained the following: \u201c We wish to add and to form part of the contract dated the 15th inst. the words \u2018first and second well season clear bass wood \u2019 as descriptive of the curtain stretcher stock which you are to furnish us.\u201d\nTo this appellee replied : \u201c As far as the grade is concerned, this, we understand, will be 1st and 2nd, same as purchased by you in the past.\u201d\nIf by the order of appellant following this, a contract was made, it was for first and second grade, same as appellant had purchased of appellee in the past.\nThere is no evidenee as to the grade that appellant had purchased in the past. There was, because of a failure of minds to meet, either no contract, or the contract as to grade was that described in appellee\u2019s letter of April 21st.\nAs before said, each party thought that a contract had been made; as to what it was there was agreement neither before nor at the trial.\nThe court below either found that there was no contract of that the contract was such as appellee claimed.\nUnder either hypothesis the judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ball & Lunsford, attorneys for appellant.", "Smith, Helmer & Moulton, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Chicago Curtain Stretcher Co. v. Paepcke-Leicht Lumber Co.\n1. Contracts\u2014A Modified Acceptance is a Rejection.\u2014A modified acceptance of a proposition is in effect a rejection of the offer.\nAssumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Elbridge Hanecy, Judge presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1902.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 5, 1903.\nBall & Lunsford, attorneys for appellant.\nSmith, Helmer & Moulton, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0249-01", "first_page_order": 271, "last_page_order": 274 }