{
  "id": 4879737,
  "name": "Thomas G. Riley v. John Du Bois",
  "name_abbreviation": "Riley v. Du Bois",
  "decision_date": "1884-02-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "236",
  "last_page": "238",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 236"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        820150
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/67/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        820073
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/67/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. 393",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2621879
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/66/0393-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2686324
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/79/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2627658
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/68/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 4312,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29391829407814896
    },
    "sha256": "4123ba196eb7538980519dbe5a88f96229bb8d412f5d05937360a91d733f65d3",
    "simhash": "1:71c3694b3296c930",
    "word_count": 796
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:53.324345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas G. Riley v. John Du Bois."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Laoey, P. J.\nThis suit was brought by the appellant against the appellee to recover the price of a cow, sold by appellant to appellee for four cents per pound, live weight; and she was picked out from among others in the pasture of appellant, and was to be weighed on the latter\u2019s farm on his scales. It appeared to be the intention that she should be paid for when taken away. This took place on Thursday, and the next morning appellee\u2019s man and agent came down to the farm, and they caught the cow and put appellee\u2019s ropes on her, but she was unmanageable and broke loose from the men with the rope on her and they could not handle her. She then ran onto the neighboring farm of Fugate, where she was pursued by appellant\u2019s aud appellee\u2019s agents, and appellant caught and tied her to some willows, when appellee\u2019s agents agreed to come down that evening or the next day and kill her where she was, but did not come until Sunday morning following, when, as appellee claims, but is denied by appellant, they agreed that they would kill her and give seven cents per pound dressed meat; but afterward, when they went on Sunday morning to look after the cow she was found dead. If the cow was accepted by appellee where tied, the delivery was complete and the loss resulting from the death of the cow would fall on appellee, no difference whether the price was paid or not; and the fact that the price was agreed on, if it was, on Sunday morning before they went to look at the cow where left tied, could make no difference, or change the status of the parties. This fact and principle of law was ignored by appellee\u2019s instruction Ho. 5, which was erroneous and highly misleading.\nAt the time the cow was tied at the willows, appellee agreed to kill her there, and employed Fugate to water her, and she was tied with appellee\u2019s ropes. By the agreement to kill the cow at the willows any claim appellant might have for payment before delivery was waived, of necessity; because, as the matter then stood, the price could not be ascertained because she could not be weighed on the scales. It must have been the intention that the title to the cow should pass as manifested by the agreement to kill her, and appellee\u2019s putting Fugate in charge of her. It appears to us the verdict was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nThe judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Laoey, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. D. L. Murdook, for appellant;",
      "Mr. G. W. Patto\u00edt, for appellee;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas G. Riley v. John Du Bois.\nSal\u00e9 \u2014 Delivery.\u2014Appellant was to sell appellee a cow at so much per pound live weight. She was picked out from among others in the pasture and was to he weighed on the latter\u2019s farm, and it appeared to be the intention that she should be paid for when taken away. The nest day appellee\u2019s agents came for the cow and put appellee\u2019s ropes on her, but the cow broke loose from them and ran into a neighbor\u2019s field, where she was pursued by appellee\u2019s agents and appellant. Appellant caught and tied her to some willows, where appellee\u2019s agents agreed to come and kill her. They did not come until Sunday morning, when, it is claimed; they agreed to kill her and give so much per pound, dressed meat. When they went to look for the cow, she was found dead. Held, that if the cow was accepted by appellee where tied, the delivery was complete, and the loss resulting from the death of the cow would fall on appellee, no matter whether the price was paid or not; and the fact that the price was agreed on, if it was, on Sunday before they went to look at the cow where she had been left tied, would not change the status of the parties.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. Fkahklln Blades, Judge, presiding,\nOpinion filed February 29, 1884.\nMr. D. L. Murdook, for appellant;\nas to instructions, cited Adams v. Smith, 58 Ill. 421; Cusick v. Campbell, 68 Ill. 510; T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Patterson, 63 Ill. 305; Ogden v. Kirby, 79 Ill. 555; Sterling Hydraulic Co. v. Williams, 66 Ill. 393; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Maffitt, 67 Ill. 431; Village of Warren v. Wright, 3 Bradwell, 602.\nMr. G. W. Patto\u00edt, for appellee;\nthat title does not pass by the mere contract of sale unless it affirmatively appears that such was the intention of the parties, cited Benjamin on Sales, 336, \u00a7 329; T. W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Chew, 67 Ill. 378; Hunt v. Eldridge, 5 Bradwell, 529."
  },
  "file_name": "0236-01",
  "first_page_order": 230,
  "last_page_order": 232
}