{
  "id": 2850615,
  "name": "Fred Grandt, Defendant in Error, v. Kirkeby-Grunderstrup Seed Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grandt v. Kirkeby-Grunderstrup Seed Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,695",
  "first_page": "312",
  "last_page": "313",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 312"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2196,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.621887471290392e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28966515036204815
    },
    "sha256": "d5570e12d0129a132c158e1e68857c0bfdd894cdd644cc455a35c1fdb9c78818",
    "simhash": "1:86cb5e1f41abe05c",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fred Grandt, Defendant in Error, v. Kirkeby-Grunderstrup Seed Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Brown\ndelivered the opinion of the-court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Brown"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles Daniels, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Fred A. Bathje and Charles E. Lot, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fred Grandt, Defendant in Error, v. Kirkeby-Grunderstrup Seed Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,695.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John D. Tubnbaugh, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 9, 1914.\n.Statement of the Case.\nAction by Fred Grandt against Kirkeby-Grunderstrup Seed Company to recover damages for breach of a contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant, where defendant agreed to purchase plaintiff\u2019s entire onion crop raised from seeds purchased of defendant. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $147.42, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Couet of Chicago, \u00a7 26 \u2014sufficiency of statement of facts. A so-called \u201cbrief statement of the facts appearing upon the trial,\u201d etc., held not such a certificate as contemplated by section 23 of the Municipal Court Act, J. & A. f 3335, and held that if considered as a bill of exceptions it contained no certificate and raised no presumption that the evidence recited in it was all the evidence heard upon the trial.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 158 \u2014when purchaser liable for contract price of onion crop frozen pending delivery. In an action to recover for the contract price of onions, it appeared that the defendant agreed to purchase plaintiff\u2019s entire onion crop at a certain price, that defendant postponed delivery of the onions until he should notify plaintiff, that plaintiff stored what he could in his cellar and that those he had no room for therein or elsewhere were frozen, and that there was no market for onions where the plaintiff lived. Held that a finding of the trial court that defendant was liable for the contract price of the onions which were frozen but that plaintiff could not recover for those which were stored in the cellar, as he should have tried to reduce the damages .by finding a market for them, will not be disturbed.\nCharles Daniels, for plaintiff in error.\nFred A. Bathje and Charles E. Lot, for defendant in error.\nSee IUinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0312-01",
  "first_page_order": 338,
  "last_page_order": 339
}