{
  "id": 2903824,
  "name": "Angelo B. Pirola, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward Fladmark, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pirola v. Fladmark",
  "decision_date": "1914-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,184",
  "first_page": "57",
  "last_page": "57",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 Ill. App. 57"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1749,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "sha256": "eeea41785390dadfa842982bda48d1067ebbbf50e1fbf9d04184e389ba901ac8",
    "simhash": "1:4e71ca583898a8ac",
    "word_count": 299
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Angelo B. Pirola, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward Fladmark, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. P. Tuchscherer, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Charles Werno, for defendant in error.",
      "Mr. Justice Baker delivered the opinion of the court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Angelo B. Pirola, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward Fladmark, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,184.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nI. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1414 \u2014when finding of court is conclusive. In an action for services the question whether there was a bona fide dispute between the parties as to the amount due was a question of fact, as to which the finding of the court was conclusive, the evidence being conflicting.\n2. Accord and satisfaction, \u00a7 4*-\u2014what constitutes accord, and satisfaction. In an action for services, if there was a bona fide dispute between the parties as to the amount due, and the plaintiff retained and cashed a check sent by the defendant having written on it words to the effect that it was the final payment for the work, such act amounted to an award and satisfaction.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by Angelo B. Pir\u00f3la against Edward Fladmark. Plaintiff plastered a certain building for defendant at the agreed price of $1,828 and after the work was completed claimed $116 for extras. A check in final payment was mailed to the plaintiff and accepted when there was due plaintiff $200, exclusive of the claim' for extras, but the plaintiff claimed to have mailed another letter to the defendant accepting the check as a credit. From a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff brings error.\nH. P. Tuchscherer, for plaintiff in error.\nCharles Werno, for defendant in error.\nMr. Justice Baker delivered the opinion of the court.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0057-01",
  "first_page_order": 79,
  "last_page_order": 79
}