{
  "id": 2875947,
  "name": "Frank Andree, Defendant in Error, v. George W. Sheehan, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Andree v. Sheehan",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,555",
  "first_page": "587",
  "last_page": "589",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ill. App. 587"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 5643,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "sha256": "b1e1af400ae0adc688662028c7fdff45dcf27bfee04133176b42c16c0ab4d748",
    "simhash": "1:f99f0008645092f8",
    "word_count": 930
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:49:21.752065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Andree, Defendant in Error, v. George W. Sheehan, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Me. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Me. Presiding Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thompson, Clark & Stevenson, for plaintiff in error; Morton J. Stevenson, of counsel.",
      "Baker & Holder, for defendant in error; G. Raymond Collins, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Andree, Defendant in Error, v. George W. Sheehan, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,555.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habby M. Fisheb, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Frank Andree, plaintiff, against George W. Sheehan, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover on contract. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $330, defendant prosecutes this writ of error. The original action was of the fourth class, in contract, against the defendant, together with one Walter E. Lund and the Merchants Pulverizing Company, a corporation. Defendant Lund was never served, and at the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence the court ordered the action dismissed as to the corporation defendant, and that the trial proceed against defendant Sheehan.\nIt appeared from the evidence that April 3, 1911, plaintiff gave defendant a written option to purchase certain machinery for \u201cone-tenth interest in a new company.\u201d Plaintiff had previously given such an option to one Fiedler for $1,500. On June 14th, defendant and Lund, as first parties, made a written contract with Fiedler, as second party, wherein first parties agreed, inter alio,, to organize an Illinois corporation, to be known as the Merchants Pulverizing Company, to which second party was to transfer the machinery in consideration of receiving one-tenth of its stock, and this part of the agreement was duly carried out. The fourth clause of the agreement provided that the first parties \u201cwill pay all the money necessary for the purpose of completely setting up and installing the said machinery and pay for all the material necessary to be used in and about the installation of the same. \u2019 \u2019\nPlaintiff testified, substantially, that shortly after the written option of April 3,1911, was signed, defendant requested plaintiff to do the engineering work in installing the machinery, which he commenced on April 29th, and was engaged thereon for thirty-three days, during the period from April 29th to June 9th; that a fair and reasonable charge for such work was $10 per day; and that while at work installing the machinery defendant visited the premises several times and expressed satisfaction with the progress of the work. Plaintiff also testified that defendant said to plaintiff: \u201cGo ahead and put in the machinery and see that everything is set up. * * * I fix you up and pay you for whatever labor you do and time you lose there.\u201d\nDefendant admitted saying to plaintiff that \u201cwe\u201d would pay expenses of hauling machinery and pay \u201cmillwrights to put up the machinery,\u201d but denied any promise to pay plaintiff for installing it.\nThe corporation was not fully organized until after plaintiff performed the labor sued for.\nOn September 18, 1911, under instructions from Sheehan and Lund, representing the corporation, an attorney at law secured a written release from plaintiff to the said corporation of \u201cwhatever right, title or interest, if any, I may have or might claim against or in * * * the goods, chattels and property, * * * now located at the plant of the Merchants Pulverizing Company * * * and delivered, obtained and installed under or pursuant to a certain option dated April 3,1911, and signed by me.\u201d Defendant testified that this release was obtained to \u201cfinish our records.\u201d\nThompson, Clark & Stevenson, for plaintiff in error; Morton J. Stevenson, of counsel.\nBaker & Holder, for defendant in error; G. Raymond Collins, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Parties, \u00a7 26 \u2014when joint obligor not necessary party. A written contract between two persons as first parties and another as second party, containing a promise by such first parties for the benefit of third persons, does not make parties to the contract co-partners, so as to make such second party a necessary party in an action by one of those benefited to recover on the contract, although both such first parties are proper parties to such action, if served, and if the question of their joint liability is raised in the trial court.\n2. Contracts, \u00a7 224*\u2014how provisions construed. In an action to recover on a promise contained in a contract to which plaintiff was not a party, which promise was to \u201cpay all the money necessary for the purpose of completely setting up and installing the said machinery,\u201d contract construed and clause quoted held to be a promise for the benefit of third persons to. pay for all the labor done in installing said machinery.\n3. Release, \u00a7 16*\u2014how construed. A release of \u201cwhatever right, title or interest, if any, I may have or might .claim against or in * * * the goods, chattels and property\u201d located at a named place and obtained under an option of a named date, held not to operate to release a claim for labor performed in setting up machinery obtained under the option and located at the place named, where it appeared that the release contained no reference to such claim for services, and that the object of obtaining such release was merely to finish the records of the corporation owning the machinery.\n4. Contracts, \u00a7 384*\u2014when evidence sufficient to support judgment in action on. In an action to recover on a contract containing a promise for the benefit of third persons, where plaintiff was one of the class intended to be benefited by such promise, evidence held to support a verdict for plaintiff.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0587-01",
  "first_page_order": 609,
  "last_page_order": 611
}