{
  "id": 2895221,
  "name": "Atlas Floor Company, Defendant in Error, v. Jacob L. Kesner, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Atlas Floor Co. v. Kesner",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,693",
  "first_page": "458",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 458"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1906,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "sha256": "b2bd9fefeab83b04090595e776baa4a416aa3907e72ea1579172bb176c764f0c",
    "simhash": "1:c57f8a1d914b208c",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Atlas Floor Company, Defendant in Error, v. Jacob L. Kesner, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 479 \u2014when objection to instruction necessary. 'Where no objection was interposed to an instruction, the principle of law stated therein will not be reviewed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D\u2019Ancona & Pflaum, for plaintiff in error; Edwin B. Mayer, of counsel.",
      "Silber, Isaacs, Silber & Woley, for defendant in error; Clarence J. Silber, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Atlas Floor Company, Defendant in Error, v. Jacob L. Kesner, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,693.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Contracts, \u00a7 312 \u2014when performance to satisfaction of party a question of fact. Whether or not the dissatisfaction of the defendant to the compliance of the plaintiff with a contract to lay composition floor perfectly satisfactory to the defendant and a certain third party was based on substantial grounds is a question for the jury, and where the evidence is in irreconcilable conflict in that regard, and the court of appeal cannot say that the verdict of the jury was unwarranted, the verdict of the jury will be sustained.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Weels, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 28, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Atlas Floor Company, a corporation, against Jacob L. Kesner to recover $315, the balance claimed to be due for labor performed and materials furnished under a contract in laying a combination floor in a building owned by' the defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $315. To reverse the judgment entered upon the verdict, the defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nD\u2019Ancona & Pflaum, for plaintiff in error; Edwin B. Mayer, of counsel.\nSilber, Isaacs, Silber & Woley, for defendant in error; Clarence J. Silber, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Bluest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0458-01",
  "first_page_order": 482,
  "last_page_order": 483
}