{
  "id": 2831488,
  "name": "Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Morris Shapiro, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Co. v. Shapiro",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,580",
  "first_page": "40",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 40"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2206,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.2571119726735e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4779714956354598
    },
    "sha256": "0316ae4cd3de2d394e0313166a96c05062143d53633a72006eb00359a86be322",
    "simhash": "1:47a0c5ac58a911f0",
    "word_count": 361
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Morris Shapiro, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Brown, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Morris Shapiro, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 17,580.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in tort by Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company against Morris Shapiro to recover damages for false and fraudulent representations made by defendant as to his credit in inducing plaintiff to sell him certain goods. From an order granting defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the suit, plaintiff appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Election of eemedies, \u00a7 13 \u2014when action not tarred. Plaintiff suing on contract for purchase price of goods does not waive right to sue for fraud practiced by defendant in inducing plaintiff to make the contract.\n2. Election of eemedies, \u00a7 3*:\u2014when doctrine is applicable. Doctrine of election of remedies applies only when the remedies are inconsistent. Where coexistent remedies are consistent with each other plaintiff may adopt all or select one, and only a satisfaction of the claim in one case constitutes a bar in the other.\n3. Election of eemedies, \u00a7 3*\u2014when remedies are consistent. The remedy by action in tort for fraud and deceit in the purchase of goods is not inconsistent with the remedy by an action on the contract for the purchase price or the value of the goods.\n4. Judgment, \u00a7 680*\u2014pleading former adjudication. Affidavit of merits setting up a defense of former adjudication is insufficient where it fails to state whether the former judgment was on the merits or whether it was satisfied.\n5. Appeal and erbob, \u00a7 1595*\u2014presumption as to proof of facts defectively pleaded. The rule that after verdict and judgment it will be presumed that proof was made of facts defectively stated in the pleadings, not applicable where bill of exceptions affirmatively states that no evidence was introduced.\nWilliam R. Brown, for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0040-01",
  "first_page_order": 64,
  "last_page_order": 65
}