{
  "id": 2843259,
  "name": "N. M. Ingham, Defendant in Error, v. Merchants Lithographing Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ingham v. Merchants Lithographing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-12-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,309",
  "first_page": "77",
  "last_page": "78",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 77"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1674,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "66623852e424a4b9888f2f013187cf11870ca4de87840af1bf3a41cb52ee71d6",
    "simhash": "1:df5911a71c6b24bc",
    "word_count": 285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "N. M. Ingham, Defendant in Error, v. Merchants Lithographing Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 401*\u2014when evidence insufficient to show a warranty. In an action for the price of paper sold and delivered to defendant in which the defendant claims a set-off for breach of warranty, a finding against the defendant on the question whether there was any warranty of the character of the paper and a failure of such warranty, held sustained by the evidence.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 282*\u2014when evidence insufficient to prove an implied warranty. A finding that there is no implied warranty of the adequacy of paper sold for the use designed will not be disturbed where there is nothing to show that the seller or her salesman was better qualified to judge of the particular fitness of the paper than was the buyer, and moreover there were questions of fact whether the seller knew for what purpose the paper was bought, and even whether it was sufficiently proved that it was not reasonably fit for that purpose.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Helmer, Moulton & Whitman, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Louis J. Pierson, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "N. M. Ingham, Defendant in Error, v. Merchants Lithographing Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,309.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Thomas F. Scully, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 22, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by N. M. Ingham, trading as N. M. Ingham & Company, against Merchants Lithographing Company for the price of certain paper sold by plaintiff to defendant. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $306.13, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nHelmer, Moulton & Whitman, for plaintiff in error.\nLouis J. Pierson, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0077-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 102
}