{
  "id": 2815987,
  "name": "W. A. Parkinson Company, Defendant in Error, v. M. S. Tullgren, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "W. A. Parkinson Co. v. Tullgren",
  "decision_date": "1913-02-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,048",
  "first_page": "295",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "177 Ill. App. 295"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 2903,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3110756650291195
    },
    "sha256": "e43779b246f18fc4ba611d0b96dcbd3a12ecf0d8847fa7ee46f44d736463ad8c",
    "simhash": "1:c82fe8241b7cf2eb",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:19:36.081100+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. A. Parkinson Company, Defendant in Error, v. M. S. Tullgren, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff sued for a balance due on a contract for masonry work alleged to be $665.95, and defendant filed a set-off claiming a balance due him of $25.30. The jury found for plaintiff in the sum of $463.66. The only two points pressed upon our attention in defendant\u2019s brief are that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and that an exhibit was improperly admitted in evidence.\nThe main fact in controversy involved in both contentions was whether the contract price agreed upon included the cost of shoring, for which defendant paid $342 and claimed credit.\nPlaintiff was invited to make an estimate on the job. Its president figured it out on a piece of paper, giving the cost of each item, and on the bottom of it wrote \u201cNo shoring,\u201d which he claimed had been agreed upon. He testified that he gave 1 \u2018 those figures \u2019 \u2019 to defendant, and that defendant said \u201che would take that over to the architect,\u201d and two or three days afterward told him to do the work. The paper was identified as the one submitted to defendant in the conversation and taken from defendant\u2019s desk. This evidence was not denied, and, under the circumstances, we think the paper was admissible as part of the conversation and as tending to corroborate plaintiff\u2019s version of it.\nThere was also evidence tending to show a stated account. Defendant did not deny receiving a statement of the account as it existed October 14th, and making four payments thereon between that time and December 23rd, a reasonable length of time to warrant his acquiescence in its correctness in the absence of any protest or objection to it. We find no good reason for disturbing the verdict, and the judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry M. Hagan, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Edwin L. Waugh, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. A. Parkinson Company, Defendant in Error, v. M. S. Tullgren, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,048.\n,1. Evidence\u2014when memorandum made in conversation admissible. \"Where the plaintiff in making an estimate on a job figures it out on a piece of paper, giving the cost of each item, and at the bottom writes \u201cno shoring,\u201d which he claims had been agreed upon, and the defendant takes the paper and two days afterwards tells plaintiff to do the work, the paper is admissible as part of the conversation as tending to corroborate plaintiff\u2019s version of it.\n2. Account stated\u2014where statement retained without protest. Where defendant has received a statement of an account and makes payments thereon and retains it over two months without protest or objection, this is a reasonable length of time to warrant his acquiescence in its correctness, and tends to show a stated account.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Arnold Heap, Judge, presiding.. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 11, 1913.\nHenry M. Hagan, for plaintiff in error.\nEdwin L. Waugh, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0295-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 315
}