{
  "id": 864988,
  "name": "William B. White v. Thomas Mackin",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. Mackin",
  "decision_date": "1886-01-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 93-2207",
  "first_page": "635",
  "last_page": "635",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 Ill. App. 635"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1453,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "sha256": "c5eadac20d1433ed462895e002917d59ff2a335a730e7baf90500fcac4a65188",
    "simhash": "1:4d4cdda9cc2ed22e",
    "word_count": 235
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:19.454599+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William B. White v. Thomas Mackin."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion Per Curiam.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Gary, Cody & Gary",
      "; for appellee, Mr. \u00a1Robert Hervey."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "No. 93\u20142207.\nWilliam B. White v. Thomas Mackin.\nA bill in chancery to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien upon a certain building. Complainant claimed that there was due him $1,166.67. On the hearing, upon pleadings and proofs, the court found due complainant $672.24 (which was the amount certified to be due by the architect). The work was done under a written contract which incorporated certain plans, specifications and drawings, was signed by both parties, and by it the architect was selected and it was agreed that the performance of the contract on the part of complainant should be to the full and complete satisfaction of said architect, and defendant\u2019s undertaking to pay for the work, etc., was upon the condition that said superintendent should certify in writing that complainant was entitled thereto. The question in dispute was in regard to certain tinning. The architect claimed that it was expressed and included in the specifications. Complainant thought it was not and refused to do it, and defendant employed another mechanic to do it, paying him a reasonable price therefor. The architect deducted the amount paid for the tinning and gave his certificate for the remainder. The court is unable to say that the architect misconstrued the contract, and the decree is affirmed.\nJudge below, George Gaedrer.\nAttorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Gary, Cody & Gary\n; for appellee, Mr. \u00a1Robert Hervey.\nOpinion filed Jan. 6, 1886."
  },
  "file_name": "0635-01",
  "first_page_order": 631,
  "last_page_order": 631
}