{
  "id": 2708083,
  "name": "Hanchett Paper Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. George F. Moore, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hanchett Paper Co. v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1910-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,269",
  "first_page": "209",
  "last_page": "215",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 Ill. App. 209"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 551,
    "char_count": 12038,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.501,
    "sha256": "2a7ef7d0c45551053726fc726d2b0d60cb17399bdc2d86d94d4a07ff53bfb2bf",
    "simhash": "1:545ed5ff4dc6e5cf",
    "word_count": 2125
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:34.372632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hanchett Paper Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. George F. Moore, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff\u2019s contention is that the only question in the case is whether there was a contract of -sale between the parties. The trial court found there was not and gave judgment accordingly. In behalf of plaintiff it is urged that the order of defendant was absolute and that the plaintiff\u2019s letter of March 9, 1908, constituted an acceptance of the order and that the contract was consummated by the shipment of March 18th. The original order of date March 6, 1908, was a positive order for the kind of material therein described, but for no other kind. It called for \u201cElm Backing\u201d with the word Elm underscored, and \u201cwith no holes.\u201d The plaintiff\u2019s reply of March 9th was not an acceptance of the order as given. On the contrary the so-called acceptance was at the most conditional, the plaintiff probably having in mind the complaint previously made in the letter of \u00a1November 16, 1907, as to the quality of a car of so-called elm backing which plaintiff had shipped to defendant about two months before that time. In that letter of \u00a1November 16th the defendant had complained that the greater part of that preceding shipment was \u201cvery unsatisfactory. Many of the bundles have big holes in the center and most of it is very knotty. It is hard for us to make use of one-half of a bundle and the other half is generally waste. * * Wish you would advise us what you are prepared to do to relieve us of these losses. * * * * We are compelled to look to you for reimbursement of the amount of damage caused on this account.\u201d\nThe defendant\u2019s order of March 6th specifies with particularity that it is \u201cElm Backing\u201d with \u201cno holes\u201d which defendant wants; and the plaintiff replies, \u201cWe cannot cut up these logs and have them perfectly clear. * * * We cannot furnish any veneer any different in quality of stock than what we have heretofore been furnishing you.\u201d The reply concludes with the statement that plaintiff would await \u201cyour further instructions in the matter before going ahead and getting- out this car.\u201d This letter was clearly a refusal to accept defendant\u2019s order of March 6th according to its terms, and without modification in respect to its requirement of \u201cno knot holes.\u201d In no sense can it be considered an acceptance of the original order. We cannot concur in plaintiff\u2019s contention that the defendant\u2019s next letter of March 11, 1908., was not a revocation of the original order of March 6th. In that letter of March 6th defendant refers to plaintiff\u2019s 'statement that it could \u201cnot furnish veneer any different in quality of stock than what we have heretofore been furnishing you,\u201d and - says explicitly, \u201cIf such is the case then you may cancel our order. At least one-third of the stock you shipped in last car load to New York was worthless. Lot of it had holes in it three feet long.\u201d As the matter then stood plaintiff had declared its inability to furnish material such as defendant had ordered and defendant had replied in effect, \u201cthat being the case you may cancel our order.\u201d\nPlaintiff\u2019s counsel urge that the use of the words \u201cif such is the case\u201d made the cancellation conditional, since it is argued that such was not the case, because the car subsequently shipped to defendant on March 18th it is claimed fully complied with the order, as the defendant itself is said to have construed the order in its letter of March 11th. In that letter, after having directed the cancellation of its previous order, defendant had written: \u201cWe don\u2019t expect clear stock, but we can not wrap moulding with veneer that has three feet holes in it.\u201d In view of the fact that plaintiff had written it could not furnish veneer any different in quality than it had \u201cheretofore been furnishing\u201d and defendant had accepted plaintiff\u2019s statement to that effect and replied, \u201cthen you may cancel our order,\u201d we are of opinion the trial court did not err in holding the cancellation to have been absolute and unconditional. The distinction sought to be made by plaintiffs counsel to the effect that if instead of saying \u201cif such is the case you may cancel our order,\u201d defendant had used the phrase \u201cinasmuch as you are unable to do so, cancel our order,\u201d the cancellation would have been effective, is in view of the facts shown in evidence a distinction without material difference. Whatever be the construction given the phraseology in controversy, it certainly suspended the original order until some agreement should be reached. \u00a1Not waiting for further instructions however plaintiff shipped the carload in controversy. \u00a1No agreement had been reached at that time and none has been since.\nThe order of March 6th as we have said called for \u201cElm, \u00a1Backing\u201d with the word Elm'underscored.. The testimony in behalf of the plaintiff tends to show that the carload in question was not wholly of elm, but \u201cof beech and elm and birch and maple.\u201d The order by its terms called for elm and there is testimony in defendant\u2019s behalf tending to show that elm backing is of a superior grade, more pliable and less liable to break than a backing made of other woods. Even though this carload was \u201cbetter than the ordinary run,\u201d it was not the quality ordered and there were at least knot holes in it; whereas the order called for \u201cno holes.\u201d Defendant\u2019s counsel insists that on two distinct grounds no recovery can be'had; first that the letter of March 11th constituted a cancellation of the original order, and second, that the carload in controversy, the value of which plaintiff sues to recover, was not Elm Backing and so did not comply with the order. In this contention we concur.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alden, Latham & Young, for plaintiff in error.",
      "George W. Woodbury, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hanchett Paper Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. George F. Moore, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 15,269.\nSales\u2014when contraet not established. Held, under the evidence in this case,- that a contract of bargain and sale v/as not entered into between the parties.\nAssumpsit. Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John H. Hume, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1910.\nStatement by the Court. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment against him in a suit brought by him against the defendant in error, to recover the alleged value of a carload of so-called \u201cElm Backing\u201d shipped from Holland, Mich., to defendant in New York City. There had been previous shipments by plaintiff, but on November 16, 1907, defendant wrote plaintiff that a carload just received was not all elm, had holes in it and was unsatisfactory. The controversy in this case grows out of a subsequent order from defendant to plaintiff, dated Hew York, March 6, 1908, as follows: \u201cPlease deliver at once 1 carload Mm Backing at 2.00 per M., F. O. B. New York. We want Mm Backing; 6 feet 3 inch, and in 500 feet bundles. Ho holes. Ship at once and charge to account of George F. Moore, Incorporated. Per M.\u201d The plaintiff acknowledged receipt of this order in a letter as follows:\n\u201cChicago, March 9th, 1908.\nGeo. F. Moore,\n34 Cooper Square, New York, N. Y.\nDear Sir: We have your order No. 3985 for a carload of Elm Veneer $2.00 per thousand, F. O. B. New York, 6 ft. 3 inch long, 500 ft. in bundle. You say \u2018no holes.\u2019 As the writer told your Mr. Moore when in Chicago a few weeks ago, also your Mr. Schroeder, Manager of your Chicago plant, we cannot cut up these logs and have them perfectly clear.\nWe instructed the mill to be particular in cutting up logs, and not use any with too large knot holes if possible.\nThey will not, and we cannot furnish Veneer any different in quality of stock than what we have heretofore been furnishing you. i\ni We will instruct them to go ahead and get this car out immediately with the above understanding. Awaiting your further instructions in the matter before going ahead and getting out this car, we are,\nYours truly,\nHanchett Paper Company., per A. E. Pierce.\u201d\nTo this letter defendant replied of date March 11, 1908, as follows:\n\u201cNew York, Mar. 11th, 1908.\nHanchett Paper Co., Chicago, Ill.\nGentlemen: In reply to your favor of the 9th inst. in which you say, \u2018We cannot furnish veneer any different in quality of stock than what we have heretofore been furnishing you,\u2019 if such is the case, then you may cancel our order. At least one-third of the stock you shipped in last carload to New York was worthless. Lot of it had holes in it three feet long. Your Mr. Pierce saw some of the stock in our Chicago house.\nWe don\u2019t expect clear stock; but we cannot wrap moulding with veneer that has three feet holes in it; any more than you could make pie plates or butter dishes out of holes.\nYours very truly,\nGeo. F. Moore, inc., Geo. F. Moore Pres.\u201d\nIt is contended in behalf of defendant and the trial court held that the above letter constituted a cancellation of defendant\u2019s order of March 6th previous.\nSubsequently plaintiff wrote as follows:\n\u201cChicago, March 13th, \u201908.\nGeo. F. Moore, New York, N. Y.\nDear Sir:\u2014\nWe have yours of the 11th relative to the car of Veneer. Your letter was received just as the Supt. of the Mill came into our office this morning. We called his attention to the matter of getting out a car of veneer for you, and he said he has just gotten out several cars, and the run of logs was better than it had been for some time, and that he would get out this car for you, and endeavor to have the run so that there would be no occasion to find any fault with there being too many or too large knotholes. He informs us he will ship this car next week.\nYours truly,\nHanchett Paper Company, per A. E. Pierce.\u201d\nApparently the plaintiff shipped the car without waiting for a reply to this last letter. According to defendant\u2019s testimony the letter last above quoted was not received at its office until Monday, March 16, 1908. Upon March 17, 1908, the defendant replied to it as follows:\n\u201cHanchett Paper Company.\nGentlemen: Your favor of the 13th inst., in which you say your Superintendent of the Mill will \u2018endeavor\u2019 to run the Veneer to our satisfaction, is received. After our experience with your concern, and the last carload you made for us, such a vague understanding in regard to quality will not be accepted.\nWe do not take any stock in the \u2018endeavor\u2019 of a superintendent who picks out logs that make more than half a shipment rubbish.\nIf you want to do any more business with us, you must furnish us at your expense, either here or in Chicago, sample rolls showing the quality of the Veneer you propose to supply. If they are satisfactory, we will then send you an order.\nYours very truly,\nGeorge P. Moore, Inc.\u201d\nThis letter was received by the plaintiff in Chicago on the 19th of March. Meanwhile on the 18th of March the plaintiff had caused the car of veneer referred to in plaintiff\u2019s letter of March 13th to be shipped from their factory at Holland, Michigan, to the defendant at Hew York, and a bill for $810, .the price of the shipment, was forwarded the same day. March 23, 1908, the defendant wrote expressing surprise at receipt of \u201can invoice for a carload of Elm Backing\u201d and saying: \u201cThe question as to quality is still unsettled, and we shall refuse to accept delivery of this car until it is.\u201d Later., on March 27th, the defendant company wrote that not having received a reply to their letter of March 23rd, they returned invoice and bill of lading.\nThere was some subsequent correspondence. On March 24th the defendant wrote that it noticed plaintiff had \u201cshipped over 400 M. feet;\u201d that the previous cars \u201ccontained only 250 M. and 300 M. feet each and we did not expect and cannot use more than that amount. Therefore even if we came to an understanding in regard to quality, there would be 100 M. feet which you must dispose of elsewhere.\u201d To this plaintiff telegraphed \u201cTake car. We will extend time on surplus shipped.\u201d The remaining correspondence is not material. Defendant refused to accept the shipment.\nAlden, Latham & Young, for plaintiff in error.\nGeorge W. Woodbury, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0209-01",
  "first_page_order": 227,
  "last_page_order": 233
}