{
  "id": 2492557,
  "name": "J. Henry Kraft v. West Side Brewery Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kraft v. West Side Brewery Co.",
  "decision_date": "1905-07-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 12,025",
  "first_page": "371",
  "last_page": "372",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 Ill. App. 371"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. App., 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5253773
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/82/0344-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill., 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3224956
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 Ill., 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5592318
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/201/0503-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3638,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08139953333186607
    },
    "sha256": "b40f2ddce25b3057555d8db8350732f02187d8615cfa6cf450d9483fc5b38cb2",
    "simhash": "1:a9139bacbab3b00d",
    "word_count": 642
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:30:46.479318+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. Henry Kraft v. West Side Brewery Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Cook county ordering a sale of certain premises covered by a trust deed executed and delivered by the appellant and wife to the appellee to secure a certain principal note for $4,000 and certain interest notes at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, made by appellant to his own order and by him endorsed. The notes were given to the West Side Brewery Company, the appellee, for a loan \u00a1November 15, 1892. The loan was for the purpose of erecting a building on the premises covered by the trust deed, in connection with a contract made at the time that the appellee would take a lease of the building for five years, and that its beer, the manufacture and sale of which was the business of the corporation, should be exclusively used and sold therein. The building was erected with the funds thus procured, and the lease executed, and.the appellant paid interest on the principal note for five years up to' the maturity of the last coupon and the principal note, \u00a1November 15, 1897, and thereafter in 1898 and 1899 paid something more on account of interest, for which he was given credit. The decree found due the amount of the principal note of $4,000 and of the last interest coupon, and $300 for solicitor\u2019s fees, less $218, made up of various items of rent credited to appellant and $100 cash paid on October 3, 1899.\nUnder these circumstances the contention of appellant that he should now be allowed to avoid payment of either principal or interest or any part thereof, on the ground that the appellee had no power or authority under the law to loan money, does not appeal to our sense of justice. Nevertheless, were such the law we should be obliged so to declare it. But the Supreme Court has emphatically pronounced against such a contention. We think the case of Central Lumber Co. v. Kelter, 201 Ill., 503, conclusive on this question. The making of this loan by the West Side Brewery Company under the circumstances disclosed by this record was as fairly within its implied powers as was the execution of the bond by the Central Lumber Company in that.\nIn Best Brewing Co. v. Klassen, 185 Ill., 37, cited by appellant, the court said: \u201cIf it had been shown that it\u201d (an appeal bond) \u201cwas executed clearly for the purpose of promoting or protecting its own business of brewing or selling beer, etc., that is to say, if the act had been reasonably necessary to accomplish the end for which the corporation was formed, it would have been within the scope of the corporate power.\u201d\nThe other cases cited by appellant can all be distinguished from the case at bar, and do not need discussion by us.\nWe think this loan was made under a valid contract and in furtherance of the appellee\u2019s legitimate business, and that \u201cthe plea of ultra vires cannot be successfully advanced in it to commit injustice.\u201d Lake Street Elevated R. R. Co. v. Carmichael, 82 Ill. App., 344.\nThe decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "I. T. Greenacee, for appellant; Alfred B. Davis, Jr., of counsel.",
      "Winston, Payne & Strawn, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. Henry Kraft v. West Side Brewery Company.\nGen. No. 12,025.\n1. Corporation\u2014what within implied powers of. A brewery company has the implied power to make a loan for the erection of a building in which it is required by contract that only the beer manufactured by such company shall be sold.\nForeclosure proceeding. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1904.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 3, 1905.\nI. T. Greenacee, for appellant; Alfred B. Davis, Jr., of counsel.\nWinston, Payne & Strawn, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0371-01",
  "first_page_order": 389,
  "last_page_order": 390
}