{
  "id": 5371353,
  "name": "Western Bottle Manufacturing Company, Appellee, v. William V. Dufner, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Western Bottle Manufacturing Co. v. Dufner",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 5,868",
  "first_page": "235",
  "last_page": "236",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 235"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 2124,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "sha256": "f6b45a613876d73279b9008dc18745acaef36d0fbd23dc89b0b31bd3c1ab3143",
    "simhash": "1:44e9cbf13705eaa8",
    "word_count": 357
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:25.002075+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Western Bottle Manufacturing Company, Appellee, v. William V. Dufner, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Clarence W. Heyl, for appellant.",
      "Kirk & Shurtleff, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Western Bottle Manufacturing Company, Appellee, v. William V. Dufner, Appellant.\nGen. No. 5,868.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Nicholas E. Worthington, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Western Bottle Manufacturing Company, a corporation, against William V. Dufner to recover the purchase price of certain bottles. The defense interposed'. was that the bottles were not lettered as ordered. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for $43.52, and from the judgment defendant appeals.\nThe errors assigned and argued all go in effect to the claim that the verdict is not supported by the law and the evidence, and that the court erred in admitting the testimony of an expert witness.\nClarence W. Heyl, for appellant.\nKirk & Shurtleff, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 156 \u2014when buyer bound to pay for goods by partial acceptance. In an action for the purchase price of bottles, a defense was interposed that the bottles were not lettered as ordered. There was a conflict in the evidence on that question and the defense was met by evidence, though disputed, that defendant accepted a part of the bottles. The court ruled the law to be that defendant was bound to pay for the whole shipment if it accepted a part. Held that ruling was a correct statement of the law.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 424 \u2014when expert evidence as to typewriting admissible. In an action for the purchase price of bottles, where there was a question whether defendant accepted a part of the bottles, and such .acceptance depended upon whether a postscript on a letter written by defendant was a forgery, held that the admission of the testimony of a witness familiar with typewriting, to the effect that the postscript was written by the same machine with which the body of the letter was written, was not improper^\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0235-01",
  "first_page_order": 281,
  "last_page_order": 282
}