{
  "id": 5373011,
  "name": "Portage Rubber Company, Defendant in Error, v. Fruin Drop Forge Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Portage Rubber Co. v. Fruin Drop Forge Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,722",
  "first_page": "11",
  "last_page": "12",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 11"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 2935,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "sha256": "158b52611f19386aa397f44861b534647063b8f3e5b0b345230e19a5e9bd6b3f",
    "simhash": "1:0d62c588228cfa38",
    "word_count": 514
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Portage Rubber Company, Defendant in Error, v. Fruin Drop Forge Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Duncan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Duncan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harris F. Williams, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Harper E. Osborn, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Portage Rubber Company, Defendant in Error, v. Fruin Drop Forge Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,722.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John D. Tubnkaugh, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 1, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Portage Rubber Company against Fruin Drop Forge Company to recover the price of 3,792 hoof pads manufactured for the defendant by the plaintiff. The case was tried without a jury and judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for $388.05 and costs. To reverse the judgment, defendant brings error.\nPlaintiff in error asks a reversal of the judgment upon three grounds: (1) That there was no contract between the parties for the manufacture of the goods;\n(2) that there was no delivery of the goods sued for;\n(3) that there was no agreement as to the price of the goods, and no proof in the record as to their value.\nHarris F. Williams, for plaintiff in error.\nHarper E. Osborn, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Contracts, \u00a7 44 \u2014what constitutes unconditional acceptance of offer. When an offer is accepted as made, the acceptance is not conditional and does not vary from the offer because followed by inquiries whether the offerer will change his terms, or as to future acts, or because accompanied with expressions of hope or suggestions or requests, etc.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 56 \u2014when answer to tetter constitutes unconditional acceptance of offer. Where a company wrote another company ordering a certain number of hoof pads to be shipped on or after a certain date and stated in the letter, \u201cIf you will you may keep in stock over and above each order sent about 2,000 pieces each of\u201d certain sizes, and the latter company in answer wrote a letter acknowledging the order and stating, \u201cwe also note that you would like for us to keep in stock * * * about 2,000 pieces each of above sizes. We will be glad to do this, but we would like for you to send us your regular order for same and mark the order \u2018to be shipped when instructed to do so.\u2019 You do not say how you want the fabric * * * but we are proceeding with the order taking it for granted that you want two plies of Duck clear across the heel,\u201d held that the answer constituted an unconditional acceptance of the request to keep in stock 2,000 pieces each of the sizes requested.\n3. Sai.es, \u00a7 329 \u2014sufficiency of the evidence. In an action for the price of hoof pads manufactured by the plaintiff for the defendant, evidence held sufficient to show a contract between the parties, that a contract price was agreed upon, that the goods were held by the plaintiff as the property of defendant and that plaintiff was entitled to recover the price.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0011-01",
  "first_page_order": 57,
  "last_page_order": 58
}