{
  "id": 2908386,
  "name": "Oliver Tydings, Defendant in Error, v. Farrington Automobile Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tydings v. Farrington Automobile Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,181",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "388",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 387"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 2148,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "sha256": "752b09bcab33278b7a11956d5e6b1a3ff3f651c9bb9287b8cffb6d055364fdc7",
    "simhash": "1:bb9772315dd19ad8",
    "word_count": 363
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Oliver Tydings, Defendant in Error, v. Farrington Automobile Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Automobiles and garages, \u00a7 4*\u2014when evidence of actual value of automobile to be taken in exchange admissible. In an action for defendant\u2019s breach of a contract to sell plaintiff an automobile, where defendant had agreed to allow plaintiff a certain sum for his car which was to be traded in, and plaintiff\u2019s car had been delivered to defendant and sold by it, refusal of court to admit in evidence testimony offered by the defendant to show the actual value of the car taken in exchange, held reversible error.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 63*\u2014value. The amount agreed upon as the trading value of property may be prima facie evidence of its true value, but is not conclusive.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McArdle & McArdle, for plaintiff in error.",
      "James Turnock, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Oliver Tydings, Defendant in Error, v. Farrington Automobile Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,181.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 9, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Oliver Tydings against Farrington Automobile Company for a breach by defendant of a written contract to furnish plaintiff an electric automobile. By the terms of the contract defendant undertook for a certain price to furnish an Ohio Electric. . Plaintiff made a deposit of $100 which, in case there was no delivery, was to be refunded. Defendant agreed to allow plaintiff on the price of the electric car $600 for his Franklin gas car, which was to be traded in. Plaintiff claims that defendant failed to deliver the electric according to the contract. The trial court found in favor of plaintiff and assessed his damages at $700, being the amount of the deposit and the $600 for plaintiff\u2019s car, which had been delivered to defendant and sold by it. From this amount $225, the price of a \u201crectifier\u201d sold by defendant to plaintiff, was deducted and judgment was entered against defendant for $475. To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nMcArdle & McArdle, for plaintiff in error.\nJames Turnock, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 413,
  "last_page_order": 414
}