{
  "id": 2553074,
  "name": "W. G. Toan, The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, et al., v. P. A. Russell",
  "name_abbreviation": "Toan v. Russell",
  "decision_date": "1904-01-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 10,894",
  "first_page": "629",
  "last_page": "631",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "111 Ill. App. 629"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 4472,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "sha256": "b1377d06050252654f154f18b4f3ec6588589232ff2d3b8cb2c8c97ae7b847a4",
    "simhash": "1:da2eadb215ef925c",
    "word_count": 773
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:54:24.452659+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. G. Toan, The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, et al., v. P. A. Russell."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Justice Stein\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nFirst. The petition alleges that the contract between appellee and Toan was made \u201c on or about August 1, 1901,\u201d whereas the proof is that it was entered into June 15,1901. This is claimed to be a variance. In view of the use of the \u25a0words \u201c on or about \u201d we do not think it is one.\nSecond. Nor do we deem the contention well taken that appellee did not do the work in accordance with his contract. He was repeatedly told by Toan, as the master finds, that there would be no detailed drawing's for the frames and that while following the plans and specifications he must be governed by his own judgment in the preparation of the frames. He caused drawings to be made and from time to time submitted them and the frames to Toan and one Jordan who was employed as superintendent upon the building by the bishop\u2019s architect. Neither of them made any objection at the time but permitted the frames to become a part of the building, and indeed they expressly approved the manner of their construction as shown by the drawings. The details prepared by the architect were never shown to appellee, and he cannot be held for a failure to build the frames in accordance with drawings which he never saw.\nThe decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Justice Stein"
      },
      {
        "text": "Upon petition for rehearing.\nFeb Curiam :\nThe petition alleges \u201c that the vital points\nat issue herein, relating to the sufficiency of the contracts between the subcontractor, Bussell, and Toan, contractor, and the Catholic Bishop of Chicago, owner, to entitle appellee to any lien whatever, have not been passed upon by this court.\u201d So far as the subcontract is concerned this is a misapprehension. In the statement preceding the opinion, the court finds the subcontract, \u201can oral agreement,\u201d was entered into and sets out the terms thereof.\nThe court did not pass upon the sufficiency of the contract between the owner and Toan for the following reasons : The contract is not in the abstract. It is not in the\nrecord. Ho such error was assigned, or argued in the briefs.\nPetition denied.",
        "type": "rehearing",
        "author": "Feb Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Amzi W. Strong, Richard A. Steen and Edward A. Feehan, for appellants.",
      "Elmer H. Adams, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. G. Toan, The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, et al., v. P. A. Russell.\nGen. No. 10,894.\n1. Variance\u2014what not. Where a petition for a mechanic\u2019s lien alleges that the contract upon which the claim for lien is sought, was made \u201c on or about August 1, 1901,\u201d and the proof shows that it was entered into June 15, 1901, there is no variance.\n2. Contract\u2014when contention that lien claimant has not performed his work in accordance with, will not he sustained. Where a subcontractor has constructed window frames for a building and the construction thereof has been approved by the owner thereof and the same have been made a part of the building, without objection upon the part either of such owner or his architect, such owner cannot thereafter claim that they were not constructed according to drawings which such subcontractor had never seen.\nMechanic\u2019s lien proceeding. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur H. Chetlain, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1902.\nAffirmed,\nOpinion filed January 19, 1904.\nRehearing denied February 18, 1904.\nAmzi W. Strong, Richard A. Steen and Edward A. Feehan, for appellants.\nElmer H. Adams, for appellee.\nStatement by the Court. This is an appeal from a decree awarding a mechanic\u2019s lien to appellee as subcontractor under appellant Toan who had the contract from appellant, The Catholic Bishop of Chicago, for the carpenter work on a church erected for the latter at Riverside, Illinois.\nOn or about April 22, 1901, Toan submitted to appellee the plans and specifications under the contract that he then expected to make with the bishop and obtained from him a proposition in writing of that date to the effect that appellee would \u201c furnish the mill work \u201d on the church building \u201c as per the plans and specifications, for the sum of \u00a7715.\u201d On June 15, 1901, Toan and appellee entered into an oral agreement whereby appellee was to furnish the millwork (door and window frames) in \u201c from six to eight weeks \u201d for $710.20 and he was to be paid \u201c as the work progressed.\u201d A part of the frames were delivered and put into the building without objection or complaint. Subsequently they were rejected by the architect of the bishop and taken out of the building on the ground that they did not correspond to the plans and specifications. The decree is for the value of these frames."
  },
  "file_name": "0629-01",
  "first_page_order": 647,
  "last_page_order": 649
}
