{
  "id": 2900553,
  "name": "Hayes Pump & Planter Company, Appellee, v. G. R. Lott and Harry M. Lott, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hayes Pump & Planter Co. v. Lott",
  "decision_date": "1914-10-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "538",
  "last_page": "539",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 Ill. App. 538"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2840,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3118647071701864
    },
    "sha256": "cf37bf9f66566e479a536f2f2f853bbdb81f291a35b788885ba05ab704b62d4c",
    "simhash": "1:a301ce97d4ab7bbb",
    "word_count": 485
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hayes Pump & Planter Company, Appellee, v. G. R. Lott and Harry M. Lott, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered th\u00bf opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wight & Alexander, for appellants.",
      "Rayburn & Buck, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hayes Pump & Planter Company, Appellee, v. G. R. Lott and Harry M. Lott, Appellants.\n(Not to he 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 October 16, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Hayes Pump and Planter Company against Gr. B. Lott and Harry M. Lott. The declaration consisted of the common counts with a sworn statement of the account sued on. To said declaration appellants filed a plea, and afterwards an amended special plea, therein pleading, in bar of the action, appellee\u2019s contract with appellants, averring that in and by said contract appellee sold, to appellants the planter and supplies in question and assigned to appellants certain territory for the trade season; that said contract was entire; that appellee had breached the territorial provisions o\u00ed the contract, and that therefore it could not recover for the planter sold and delivered to appellants. Appellee demurred to said plea craving oyer, of said contract. The court sustained the demurrer and appellants excepted and elected to stand by said amended plea. Judgment on demurrer was entered in the sum of $518.32, to reverse which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.\nWight & Alexander, for appellants.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 323 \u2014when plea in bar of suit for price demurrable. In an action for goods sold and delivered under a special contract, a special plea setting up in bar of the action a breach of a provision of the contract to assign to defendants certain territory, held wholly bad as being a plea in bar of the action and therefore demurrable.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 59*\u2014when contract severable. A contract containing an agreement by the buyer to pay for goods sold and delivered and an agreement by the seller to assign to the buyer certain territory for a trade season, held severable and not entire.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 59*\u2014when covenant in contract is independent. Where a contract contained an agreement by the buyer to pay for goods sold and delivered and also an agreement by the seller to assign to the buyer certain territory for a trade season, held that the agreement to pay for the goods was an independent agreement and that the territorial provisions were not conditions precedent to the agreement to pay for the goods.\n4. Sales, \u00a7 331*\u2014amount of recovery. In an action for goods sold and delivered, where the only plea filed was a special plea in bar of the action and such plea was bad and so held on demurrer, held that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for the amount sued for in the declaration.\nRayburn & Buck, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0538-01",
  "first_page_order": 560,
  "last_page_order": 561
}