{
  "id": 2562619,
  "name": "Seth Whitsell v. R. E. Rising",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitsell v. Rising",
  "decision_date": "1903-04-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "92",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "109 Ill. App. 91"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 2308,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3473575100324382
    },
    "sha256": "a7f2f26b06481cf28a2d05cebd9f57bcb643cb46f8b6ab98e03d7a0a3e7c0aa6",
    "simhash": "1:5c107da7c498e6ad",
    "word_count": 398
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:53.684315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Seth Whitsell v. R. E. Rising."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Wright\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a suit by appellee against appellant to recover damages for a failure to deliver 1,200 bushels of corp sold to the former by the latter at fifty cents per bushel. A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment against appellant for $108, to reverse which he prosecutes this appeal, insisting the court improperly ruled upon the evidence, the measure of damages and the instructions, and that the verdict is.not supported by the evidence.\nWe find no prejudicial rulings of the court upon the evidence, or the instructions, and we think the court adopted the correct rule in respect to the measure of damages\u2014the difference between the contract price and the market price when the corn was deliverable and the breach, of contract occurred.\nThe evidence as to the contract itself was conflicting; on the part of the appellee that the corn was to be delivered in November or December, as appellee might require, and on the part of appellant that it was to be delivered in thirty days from the time of entering into contract. Appellee was not ready to receive the corn within the thirty days, but later demanded, and was ready and willing to receive and pay for it, but appellant refused to deliver the same. The evidence of either party would support a verdict in his favor, and in such cases this court will not disturb the verdict for the sole reason it is not supported by the evidence, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Wright"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles M. Peirce, attorney for appellant.",
      "Owen & Owen, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Seth Whitsell v. R. E. Rising.\n1. Contracts\u2014Measure of Damages for Breach of Contract to Deliver Grain.\u2014The measure of damages for the breach of a contract to deliver grain is the difference between the contract price and the market price when the grain was deliverable and the breach of contract occurred.\n3. Verdicts\u2014 Where This Court Will Not Disturb.\u2014Where the evidence of either party would support, a verdict in his favor this court will not disturb the verdict for the sole reason that it is not supported by the evidence.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. Colostin D. Myers, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1903.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 30, 1903.\nCharles M. Peirce, attorney for appellant.\nOwen & Owen, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 117,
  "last_page_order": 118
}