{
  "id": 2854525,
  "name": "R. A. Crandall, Defendant in Error, v. Albert L. Kirk, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crandall v. Kirk",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,007",
  "first_page": "460",
  "last_page": "461",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 460"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 3629,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "sha256": "9d432af8b66e622c881753b996649d44a761d359a53f6e8cf361f831e02f6cff",
    "simhash": "1:0d58e429d104e1bd",
    "word_count": 626
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. A. Crandall, Defendant in Error, v. Albert L. Kirk, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and bbrob, \u00a7 849 \u2014when exhibits sufficiently identified to become part of record. The fact that exhibits introduced in evidence at the trial appear after instead of above the judge\u2019s signature to the stenographic report does not prevent them from being part of the record where so identified in the report as to show conclusively that they were the exhibits referred to therein.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 482 \u2014when propositions of law unnecessary. Propositions of law are unnecessary where the only questions presented for review relate to pure questions of fact or to rulings of the court during the trial which were otherwise preserved.\n3. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 594 \u2014when motion for new trial or in arrest unnecessary. Where the trial is by the court without a jury, no motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment is necessary.\n4. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 551 \u2014when exception unnecessary. Under the amendment of 1911, Practice Act, sec. 81, J. & A. jf 8618, no formal exception is necessary to be shown where a stenographic report of the trial instead of a bill of exceptions is certified, filed and used as the record of the court of review.\n5. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 26 \u2014when seal unnecessary to stenographic report. The signature of a Municipal judge to the stenographic report need not be under seal.\n6. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 26 \u2014when certificate to stenographic report sufficient. Certificate to a stenographic report that it is a \u201ccorrect stenographic report of proceedings in said cause\u201d is not open to objection.\n7. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1105 \u2014when failure to give notice of filing of prcecipe not ground for dismissal. Failure to give the five days\u2019 notice of filing prcecipe for record provided for in Practice Act, see. 81, J. & A. V 8618, is not ground for the dismissal of the appeal.\n8. Vendor and pubchaseb, \u00a7 332 \u2014when tender of reconveyance at trial insufficient. Where the vendor of an automobile accepted a deed to certain realty in part payment of the purchase price, on condition that certain defects in title be removed within a specified time, or in lieu thereof \u00e1 stipulated sum of money, in an action to recover such sum a tender of a reconveyance at the trial will not suffice, and the plaintiff\u2019s remedy is confined to the recovery of damages for breach of contract to deliver a merchantable title.\n9. Vendor and purchaser, \u00a7 344 \u2014measure of damages for defective title. The measure of damages for breach of contract to deliver a merchantable title is the difference between the actual value of the title delivered and its agreed value.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Francis E. Croarkin, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John T. Booz, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. A. Crandall, Defendant in Error, v. Albert L. Kirk, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,007.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry C. Beitleb, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 26, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by E. A. Crandall against Albert L. Kirk to recover, a stipulated sum agreed by the latter to be paid on failure to perfect title to certain property conveyed to plaintiff in part payment of the purchase price of an automobile, such sum to be in lieu of the property. On trial below without a jury plaintiff recovered judgment for four hundred dollars, from which defendant brings error. A motion to affirm the judgment was reserved to the hearing.\nFrancis E. Croarkin, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn T. Booz, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0460-01",
  "first_page_order": 486,
  "last_page_order": 487
}