{
  "id": 2813307,
  "name": "Charles R. Gnuske and Albert L. Gnuske, Copartners, for use of C. Sidney Sheppard & Company, Appellees, v. Neil J. Duffy, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gnuske ex rel. C. Sidney Sheppard & Co. v. Duffy",
  "decision_date": "1913-03-04",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,041",
  "first_page": "648",
  "last_page": "649",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "177 Ill. App. 648"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "173 Ill. 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5537549
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/173/0179-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2548,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08467848897754271
    },
    "sha256": "7ddf422b8c69a38f80044a8a7fe7321c2c9919469619f24ff94fc98c2dc7fbcf",
    "simhash": "1:cc36df3438a51baf",
    "word_count": 419
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:19:36.081100+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles R. Gnuske and Albert L. Gnuske, Copartners, for use of C. Sidney Sheppard & Company, Appellees, v. Neil J. Duffy, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff recovered judgment for $69 for alleged completed work done under a written contract on defendant\u2019s building. Defendant concedes that he was justly indebted to the amount of $35. The contract provided that the payments thereunder should be made upon certificates of the architect in charge of the construction.\nIn the absence of, facts or circumstances excusing it\u2014and there are none in this case\u2014the obtaining or presentation of the certificate was a condition precedent to the right to recover. International Cement Co. v. Beifeld, 173 Ill. 179. Plaintiff admits that no final certificate was demanded or issued. In view, therefore, of that fact and that the amount in excess of $35 is in dispute, the judgment can be affirmed only for such amount.\nIt was not error or an abuse of discretion to allow an amendment at the trial, making an additional party plaintiff, so as to conform to the proof, even though six years had elapsed since the commencement of the suit.\nIf plaintiff will within ten days from the filing of this opinion file in this court a remittitur of $34, the judgment will be affirmed; otherwise the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\nAffirmed on remittitur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hugh J. Kearns, for appellant.",
      "Thomas M. Poynton, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles R. Gnuske and Albert L. Gnuske, Copartners, for use of C. Sidney Sheppard & Company, Appellees, v. Neil J. Duffy, Appellant.\nGen. No. 17,041.\n1. Building contracts\u2014architect\u2019s certificate. Where a contract for work on a building provides that payments thereunder should be made\u00a1 upon certificates of an architect, the obtaining or presentation of such certificate is a condition precedent to the right to recover in the absence of facts or circumstances excusing it.\n2. Building contracts\u2014recovery where architect\u2019s certificate not obtained. Where certificates of an architect, required by a contract providing that payments should be made upon such certificates, are not demanded or obtained, recovery may be had only for the amount which is undisputed.\n3. Parties\u2014amendments at trial. Though six years have elapsed since action was commenced, it is neither error nor an abuse of discretion to allow an amendment at the trial making an additional party plaintiff so as to conform to the proof.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Arthur H. Frost, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.\nAffirmed on remittitur.\nOpinion filed March 4, 1913.\nHugh J. Kearns, for appellant.\nThomas M. Poynton, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0648-01",
  "first_page_order": 666,
  "last_page_order": 667
}