{
  "id": 880158,
  "name": "William Corbett, Trading as The Chicago Building Materials Company, Defendant in Error, v. United States Metal & Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Corbett v. United States Metal & Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-06-24",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,754",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "424",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 Ill. App. 421"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 5434,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "sha256": "f3a872da33007fb342580893e04482645e1c6a2a2c31d25d079ce357ff90840a",
    "simhash": "1:d1615693ac2e6480",
    "word_count": 936
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:55.892129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Corbett, Trading as The Chicago Building Materials Company, Defendant in Error, v. United States Metal & Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe statement of claim in this case sets forth the alleged right of the plaintiff to recover for money due and owing to the plaintiff from the defendant for one carload of \u201cstructural steel scrap\u201d sold and delivered on December 19, 1910. The affidavit of merits sets up as a defense that the \u201cstructural steel scrap\u201d which the plaintiff undertook to sell and deliver on the day aforesaid was' not of the quality or condition contracted for by the defendant with the plaintiff, and that by reason thereof the defendant refused to accept the same.\nIt seems from the record that the plaintiff was the owner of a quantity of \u201cstructural punehings\u201d and \u201cstructural steel scrap\u201d which were located at the plant of the George W. Jackson Company. Negotiations were had between the parties which resulted in the defendant writing to the plaintiff on December 9, 1910, the following letter:\n\u201cThis will confirm purchase from you of one carload of structural punehings at $12.50 net ton, and 2 carloads of structural steel scrap at $12.25 gross ton. less 50c per ton commission to us, f. o. b. cars The Geo. W. Jackson plant.\n\u201cKindly arrange to have the cars weighed and set in, and advise us when you are ready to load.\u201d\nTwo cars were taken and paid for. The car in question was loaded and was billed by the Jackson Company to the defendant at North avenue station of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company. It remained there a few days, and then a bill of lading was issued by that company to the defendant, by which the car was consigned to the Inland Steel Company at Indiana Harbor. The plaintiff insists that the Inland Steel Company purchased it from the defendant. The defendant claims that this is not the fact; that in some way it was acting as agent for the Inland Steel Company, and that this is borne out by the language of the letter of acceptance, which has in it the words, \u201cless 50c per ton commission to us, f.o.b. cars The Geo. W. Jackson plant.\u201d The plain construction of this letter, however, is that the commission, if such it may be called, was to be paid by the plaintiff, and the other parts of the letter clearly show the confirmation of the purchase by the defendant from the plaintiff, acting in its own behalf and not for someone else.\nThe case was tried before the court without a jury, a finding had in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment entered upon that finding.\nMost of the questions presented to us on this writ of error are questions of fact. As to those questions it is sufficient to say that we have carefully examined the record and have reached the conclusion that the weight of the evidence was with the plaintiff.\nThe contention of the defendant, as we understand it, is that it bought \u201cshearings,\u201d and not \u201cstructural steel scrap.\u201d This contention is not tenable in view of the affidavit of defense. By rule 19 of the Municipal Court \u201cevery allegation of fact in any statement of claim * * if not denied specifically or by necessary implication in the affidavit of defense * * * shall be taken to be admitted except as against an infant or a lunatic.\u201d Nowhere in the affidavit .of merits is it claimed as a defense that the contract between the parties was for anything other than \u201cstructural steel scrap.\u201d The testimony is conflicting as to whether the car contained something other than \u201cstructural steel scrap,\u201d and there is testimony to the effect that \u201cshearings\u201d are \u201cscrap:\u201d\nIn effect the court found that the contract between the parties had been complied with with respect to the quality and character of the material. After a careful examination of the record we are unable to say that the conclusion so reached was erroneous.\nEntertaining, as we do, this view of the case, it is unnecessary to consider many questions raised in the briefs, among others whether the defendant\u2019s act in causing a reshipment of the property to the Inland Steel Company amounted to an acceptance; whether the attempted rejection came too late; whether the fact that the defendant made no offer to return the property precludes entertainment of its present contention that the material was not in accordance with the terms of the contract; whether, if there was an acceptance, it was made under a mistake of fact, etc.\nWe have carefully considered the question as to alleged errors of the court in the reception of testimony, and are of opinion that if errors were committed they were harmless as being related to subjects having nothing to do with the substantive questions of fact raised by the statement of claim and the affidavit of defense. The judgment will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Leman & Rigby, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John S. Hummer, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Corbett, Trading as The Chicago Building Materials Company, Defendant in Error, v. United States Metal & Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,754.\nMunicipal court\u2014affidavit of defense. In an action in the Municipal Court for money alleged to be due for a carload of \u201cstructural steel scrap, \u2019 \u2019 where it is not claimed in the affidavit of merits that the contract was for anything other than such scrap, defendant cannot contend that he bought \u201cshearings\u201d and not the scrap.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Robert H. Scott, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 24, 1913.\nLeman & Rigby, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn S. Hummer, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 447,
  "last_page_order": 450
}
