{
  "id": 2895024,
  "name": "Louis Goldschmidt and Beatrice Sackerman, trading as Goldschmidt & Sackerman, Plaintiffs in Error, v. George Lessaris, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goldschmidt v. Lessaris",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,400",
  "first_page": "268",
  "last_page": "270",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 268"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3097,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "sha256": "dcb84d4802ca66e73c47a538b4a75fd40307c082e4de6f38c1cc74d24c7f0ee7",
    "simhash": "1:b2c3ec9075fdadd3",
    "word_count": 513
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louis Goldschmidt and Beatrice Sackerman, trading as Goldschmidt & Sackerman, Plaintiffs in Error, v. George Lessaris, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1034 \u2014when rules of Municipal Court not judicially noticed. The Appellate Court will not take judicial notice of rules of the Municipal Court.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 482*\u2014when no question of law presented. Where on a trial before the court without a jury no propositions of law were submitted, no questions of law are presented for review.\n3. Fraud, \u00a7 12*\u2014what is effect of independent investigation. No action for damages arising from fraud will lie where the plaintiff relies wholly on his own inspection of the thing purchased and not on any fraudulent statement of the defendant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George M. Bagby, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Homer Sullivan, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis Goldschmidt and Beatrice Sackerman, trading as Goldschmidt & Sackerman, Plaintiffs in Error, v. George Lessaris, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,400.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Rooney, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 13, 1915.\nRehearing denied April 27, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Louis Goldschmidt and Beatrice Sackerman, trading as Goldschmidt & Sackerman, against George Lessaris to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs as the result of fraud, deceit and breach of warranty on the part of the defendant in Ms sale to them of a moving picture theater at 3506 South Halsted street, Chicago. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant represented and warranted to them at the time of the sale that the heating and ventilating system then in the theater in every respect conformed to and complied with the law ordinances in the city of Chicago then in force and effect prescribing and regulating heating and ventilating for theaters of the class purchased by plaintiffs; that the ventilating system of the theater at the time of the purchase by plaintiffs was not proper, lawful, satisfactory or fit, but at the time was unlawful, improper, unsatisfactory and unfit, and that defendant had been informed before the sale of the theater and had been notified by the city of Chicago that no license from said theater to operate said theater would be issued on July 1, 1913, unless the city was first furnished satisfactory evidence of the intention of the owner or lessee to supply a fit, proper, lawful and satisfactory ventilating system in and to said theater on or before October 1, 1913/ and a reasonable deposit made with the city, guarantying the same, all of which was denied by the defendant, who asserted that plaintiffs did not rely upon any representation by him as to the condition of the premises or to the ventilating system therein but that they had carefully examined said premises and ventilating system and that same was open to their scrutiny and examination before the purchase.\nFrom a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs prosecute error.\nGeorge M. Bagby, for plaintiffs in error.\nHomer Sullivan, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0268-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 294
}