{
  "id": 2875913,
  "name": "Acme-Evans Company, Defendant in Error, v. Oscar L. Hunter and John Doe, trading as O. L. Hunter & Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Acme-Evans Co. v. Hunter",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,170",
  "first_page": "542",
  "last_page": "544",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ill. App. 542"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 4084,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4380338390384922
    },
    "sha256": "802cf38980a60366dcfc3b297745931ede97317f4a7e3e775fad151fcfbc536d",
    "simhash": "1:dfc6c39c409f69ed",
    "word_count": 673
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:49:21.752065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Acme-Evans Company, Defendant in Error, v. Oscar L. Hunter and John Doe, trading as O. L. Hunter & Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Sat.es, \u00a7 60 \u2014when contract executory. Where a contract for the sale of grain provided for prompt shipment on shipping instructions to be given by the vendee, held that the contract was in its essence executory.\n5. Sales, \u00a7 306 \u2014when notice of resale not required on breach by purchaser. In a contract for the sale of grain which is essentially executory, notice of a resale is not required.\n6. Evidence, \u00a7 280 \u2014when marlcet reports admissible to show values. Trade journals and market reports are primary evidence tending to show market values, for the reason that they are based on a survey of the whole market and are a source of information on which the business world relies, for which reasons they are more satisfactory than individual entries of sales and inquiries.\n7. Evidence, \u00a7 51 \u2014who has burden of disproving marlcet reports. Where market reports admitted as tending to show market value do not state the correct market price, the burden is on the adverse party to show that fact.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Auden, Latham & Young, for plaintiffs in error; T. A. Sheehan, of counsel.",
      "Frank F. Reed and Charles A. Williams, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Acme-Evans Company, Defendant in Error, v. Oscar L. Hunter and John Doe, trading as O. L. Hunter & Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,170.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1915.\nRehearing denied October 14, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Acme-Evans Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Oscar L. Hunter and John Doe, trading as O. L. Hunter & Company, defendants, to recover on a contract for the sale of grain. The contract was for prompt shipment on shipping orders to be given by defendants. The contract contained an option, which was reserved to the plaintiff, that \u201cat the end of the contract time * * * the seller shall have the right * * * (3) to continue the contract, without notice, for thirty days with a carrying charge.\u201d A resale was made more than thirty days after a reasonable time had expired wherein defendants might have given shipping instructions, of which resale no notice was given to defendants. Plaintiff constantly pressed defendants by letters and telegrams, for shipping instructions, to which defendants paid no attention. The judgment was for the difference between the contract price and the amount realized on the resale, with carrying charges and commissions added. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendants prosecute this writ of error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 114 \u2014when breach of contract shown. Where a contract for the sale of grain provided for prompt shipment on shipping instructions to be given by defendants, and containing an option to plaintiff which had the effect of. extending the time of delivery, but where it appeared that plaintiff, during the whole time, constantly pressed defendants for shipping instructions, which were never given, held that the evidence showed a breach by defendants.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 124 \u2014what essential to \u201cprompt delivery.\" By legal intendment, \u201cprompt delivery\u201d means within a few days at most.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 341 \u2014when time for compliance by purchaser not extended. Where a contract for the sale of grain provided for prompt shipment on shipping orders to be given by defendants, which also contained an option to plaintiff which had the effect of extending the time of delivery for thirty days, evidence held to show no ground for defendants to believe that the time of performance had been extended by the exercise of plaintiff\u2019s option, although it appeared that a resale was not made until more than thirty days after the expiration of a reasonable time for giving shipping instructions, it appearing that during the whole time plaintiff constantly pressed defendants, by letters and telegrams, for such instructions.\nAuden, Latham & Young, for plaintiffs in error; T. A. Sheehan, of counsel.\nFrank F. Reed and Charles A. Williams, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0542-01",
  "first_page_order": 564,
  "last_page_order": 566
}