{
  "id": 5386493,
  "name": "George E. Luce, Appellee, v. E. P. Armstrong, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Luce v. Armstrong",
  "decision_date": "1914-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "248",
  "last_page": "250",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 Ill. App. 248"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2474,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "sha256": "2872426f10a4a5655b03a4dbb430a6a596a0d4abb9c1f46b2a01c04bb63f2e1c",
    "simhash": "1:df3ec9b830f3a694",
    "word_count": 434
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:45.032867+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George E. Luce, Appellee, v. E. P. Armstrong, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presedirg Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presedirg Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Murray & Morrissey, for appellant.",
      "Walker R Flirt, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George E. Luce, Appellee, v. E. P. Armstrong, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. Colostin D. Myebs, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1914.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebkob, \u00a7 990 \u2014when ruling on motion not presented for review. A ruling on a motion to suppress depositions is not presented for review, where the bill does not contain any such motion or exception to the ruling thereon; that the motion and ruling thereon are in the record and the clerk has written an exception to the ruling does not save the question for review.\n2. Appeal and ebbor, \u00a7 788*\u2014necessity of hill of exceptions. A bill of exceptions is necessary to present for review rulings on motions and anything outside of the proper common-law record.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 65*\u2014contract construed as to place of weighing and grading. Where a buyer made a proposition under which hay was sold to him to pay a certain price per ton for timothy \u201cyour track,\u201d held that the hay when placed on the cars at the place of shipment was delivered .to the buyer there, and any difference between the weight of the hay at the place of shipment and destination was at the risk of the buyer and that he could not insist that he bought the hay to be weighed and graded according to custom at destination.\n4. Sales, \u00a7 330*\u2014when instruction not misleading. In an action for the price of a shipment of hay, where the proposition of defendant under which the hay was sold to him was to pay a certain sum per ton for timothy \u201cyour track,\u201d the giving of an instruction omitting the word \u201ctimothy\u201d in describing the hay, and using the letters \u201cF.O.B.\u201d instead of the words \u201cyour track,\u201d held not misleading.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by George E. Luce against E. P. Armstrong to recover a balance claimed to be due for some bay shipped by plaintiff from Hope, North Dakota, to defendant at Bloomington, Illinois. The suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace, where plaintiff had judgment, and on appeal to the Circuit Court the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $151.75. To reverse the judgment rendered on the verdict defendant appeals.\nMurray & Morrissey, for appellant.\nWalker R Flirt, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0248-01",
  "first_page_order": 268,
  "last_page_order": 270
}