{
  "id": 2849512,
  "name": "Oscar Erikson, Appellee, v. James R. Ward, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Erikson v. Ward",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,783",
  "first_page": "269",
  "last_page": "270",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 269"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 3004,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2943455390642466
    },
    "sha256": "3ada6ff5c9e993e15304f903a11f747952691fcfa5fb95bb27e8495ce32c07aa",
    "simhash": "1:15c488ec908aa478",
    "word_count": 517
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Oscar Erikson, Appellee, v. James R. Ward, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Election oe \u00a1remedies, \u00a7 3 \u2014when court of equity may compel election. If after a bill in equity has been filed, so that the jurisdiction of the court has attached and the case is not one where a party may proceed, as in the case of a mortgage, in equity and at law at the same time, the court of equity will compel the party to make an election in which court he will proceed and the proceedings in the other court will be stayed.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1705 \u2014when objection not urged as ground for new trial is waived. On appeal from a judgment awarding a building contractor a recovery for labor and materials furnished under a building contract, an objection that the contractor had not obtained a city license is waived where such objection was not urged as a ground in defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial.\n5. Building and construction contracts, \u00a7 105 \u2014when modification of requested instruction not error. In an action to recover for work and materials performed under a building contract, trial court\u2019s modification of instructions asked by defendant by inserting the words \u201csubstantially\u201d and \u201creasonable,\u201d held not error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jambs E. Ward, for appellant.",
      "Mather & Hutson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Oscar Erikson, Appellee, v. James R. Ward, Appellant.\nGen. No. 18,783.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Building and construction contracts, \u00a7 85 \u2014when vending suit in equity for mechanic\u2019s lien no defense. In an action to recover a sum claimed to be due for labor and materials furnished under a building contract, defendant cannot urge as a defense that the previous filing of a bill' in equity, by the plaintiff for a mechanic\u2019s lien for the amount claimed constitutes an election of remedies.\n2. Abatement and revival, \u00a7 34 \u2014when vending of suit in equity cannot be yleaded in abatement. A former suit pending in equity cannot he pleaded in abatement of a subsequent action of law. If the defendant in an action of law is entitled to any advantage from the pendency of a bill in equity, it is only by injunction from the equity court to stay the proceedings at law.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Cottrell, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 9, 1914.\nCertiorari granted hy Supreme Court.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Oscar Erikson against James E. Ward to recover a sum claimed to be due from defendant to plaintiff for work and materials furnished under a building contract. Defendant filed an affidavit of defense to the whole of plaintiff\u2019s demand and an itemized statement of set-off or counterclaim verified by his affidavit, wherein he stated that there was a certain sum due him from plaintiff. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $1,955, defendant appeals.\nJambs E. Ward, for appellant.\nMather & Hutson, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI fo XV, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0269-01",
  "first_page_order": 295,
  "last_page_order": 296
}