{
  "id": 5369112,
  "name": "L. Fish Furniture Company, Appellant, v. Charles R. Horrie, trading as Randolph Market & Grocery, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "L. Fish Furniture Co. v. Horrie",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,262",
  "first_page": "64",
  "last_page": "65",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 64"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 1696,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "sha256": "d6ba06e0715f6f9b236304e4ff66866e7625e426061da37503fab3ab00da10d5",
    "simhash": "1:8014e4946185a2c4",
    "word_count": 290
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. Fish Furniture Company, Appellant, v. Charles R. Horrie, trading as Randolph Market & Grocery, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Clark\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Clark"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Friedman & Ader, for appellant.",
      "Morris & Schusterman and Henry J. Gibbs, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. Fish Furniture Company, Appellant, v. Charles R. Horrie, trading as Randolph Market & Grocery, Appellee.\nGen. No. 19,262.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Isaac Hudson, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 21, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by L. Fish Furniture Company, a corporation against Charles B. Horrie, trading as Bandolph Market & Grocery, to recover an amount claimed to be due from defendant for a quantity of trading stamps. From a judgment in favor' of defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nFriedman & Ader, for appellant.\nMorris & Schusterman and Henry J. Gibbs, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision. Sales, \u00a7 332 \u2014when verdict for defendant in action for price of trading stamps cannot he sustained. In an action to recover a sum claimed to be due for trading stamps, a special notice of defense attached to the plea of the general issue and the affidavit of merits stated that \u201cdefendant would give in evidence and offer to prove that he has never refused to pay plaintiff according to the terms of said contract and that he now does offer the said plaintiff the sum of one hundred and forty-five dollars, being the amount due,\u201d etc. Held that a judgment entered on a verdict for defendant could not be sustained, the plaintiff having admitted a sum to be due, and the alleged tender not being kept good by payment of the money into court or by an offer of it in open court or otherwise.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0064-01",
  "first_page_order": 110,
  "last_page_order": 111
}