{
  "id": 5383401,
  "name": "William Sumner Smith, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Rosenwasser et al., trading as Rosenwasser Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Rosenwasser",
  "decision_date": "1915-01-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,109",
  "first_page": "95",
  "last_page": "96",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 95"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2401,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "sha256": "1e72469df99573d61c749adc628b9db2d489f43d9492aa677a1e908d1ac664a2",
    "simhash": "1:0f374c90a839a4ab",
    "word_count": 389
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Sumner Smith, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Rosenwasser et al., trading as Rosenwasser Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Culver, Andrews & King, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Willis Melville, for defendant in error; Ernest C. Reniff, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Sumner Smith, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Rosenwasser et al., trading as Rosenwasser Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 20,109.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La But, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed January 5, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAttachment suit by William Sumner,Smith against Harry Rosenwasser and Morris Rosenwasser, copartners, trading as Rosenwasser Brothers, in New York City, the plaintiff claiming that they owed him $156.96. Tucker & Hagen, a corporation, was served as garnishee. Subsequently the defendants appeared and entered into a recognizance, whereupon the attachment was released. Plaintiff\u2019s claim was based upon the refusal of defendants to deliver him certain sandals, resulting in a loss' of profits because of his inability to resell the sandals. It appeared that the defendants refused to deliver the goods unless the plaintiff paid cash or procured somebody to guarantee his account for him, though they had contracted to allow him a certain time for payment. The case was tried befor\u00e9 the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment against defendants for $156.96, whereupon this writ of error was brought.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 381 \u2014when buyer bound to reduce damages. Where a seller breached a contract whereby sandals were to be delivered to a purchaser, but the purchaser was notified of the refusal to deliver the goods unless he paid cash or obtained somebody to guarantee his account, and such purchaser could have obtained similar sandals and reduced his damages, it was the duty of such purchaser to so reduce his damages, and only nominal damages were recoverable.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 376*\u2014what measure of damages for breach of contract. In an action for breach of contract in failing to deliver chattels or other commodities, where the purchase price has not been paid, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time stipulated for delivery.\nCulver, Andrews & King, for plaintiffs in error.\nWillis Melville, for defendant in error; Ernest C. Reniff, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0095-01",
  "first_page_order": 139,
  "last_page_order": 140
}