{
  "id": 2852753,
  "name": "Max G. J. Hoffman, trading as The Aamax-Hoffman Cabinet Works, Defendant in Error, v. Zulu Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hoffman v. Zulu Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-02-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,690",
  "first_page": "185",
  "last_page": "186",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 185"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1828,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7518976975105498
    },
    "sha256": "92c777fc31979097fa13d5da3bf3f36fb2c63598a111ca21cc6c281508d891c3",
    "simhash": "1:4b144e35c10681ec",
    "word_count": 296
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Max G. J. Hoffman, trading as The Aamax-Hoffman Cabinet Works, Defendant in Error, v. Zulu Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice S'cahlah\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice S'cahlah"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George I. Haight, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Paul J. Huxmahh, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Max G. J. Hoffman, trading as The Aamax-Hoffman Cabinet Works, Defendant in Error, v. Zulu Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,690.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nSales, \u00a7 97 \u2014when refusal of purchaser to accept not justified. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract under which the former agreed to supply the latter with one thousand cabinets for match vending machines. It was understood .that the cabinets were to fit castings constituting the front of the machines to be supplied by defendant. After more than half of the cabinets had been delivered to, defendant the latter complained that they did not fit the castings. Plaintiff then took back all but twenty-five, making certain alterations which he claimed remedied the defects, but claimed that defendant refused to receive them, or any more cabinets under the contract. Held that the trial court\u2019s finding that the difficulty in making the cabinets and the castings fit was due entirely to a lack of uniformity in the latter, was sustained by the evidence.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago: the Hon. Ruirus F. Robinson, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 5, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Max Gr. J. Hoffman, trading as The Aamax-Hoffman Cabinet Works, against Zulu Manufacturing Company, a corporation, for goods purchased by defendant and for additional costs incurred by reason of defendant\u2019s refusal to accept a portion of such goods. From a judgment for plaintiff for $382.88, defendant brings error.\nGeorge I. Haight, for plaintiff in error.\nPaul J. Huxmahh, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0185-01",
  "first_page_order": 211,
  "last_page_order": 212
}