{
  "id": 2874878,
  "name": "Crerar, Adams & Company, Defendant in Error, v. John J. Brittain and M. B. Bushnell, trading as John J. Brittain Company, Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crerar, Adams & Co. v. Brittain",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,617",
  "first_page": "38",
  "last_page": "39",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 38"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 3199,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "sha256": "ffc082c6bd07113c95da67f7edeb291112def99b15574955325b10352a5770ff",
    "simhash": "1:5f34c5ac79ad753b",
    "word_count": 544
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Crerar, Adams & Company, Defendant in Error, v. John J. Brittain and M. B. Bushnell, trading as John J. Brittain Company, Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the\nopinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter A. Lantz, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Meyer Shapiro, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Crerar, Adams & Company, Defendant in Error, v. John J. Brittain and M. B. Bushnell, trading as John J. Brittain Company, Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 20,617.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edmund K. Jarecki, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1915.\nRehearing denied October 15, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Crerar, Adams & Company, a corporation, against John J. Brittain and M. B. Bushnell, trading as John J. Brittain Company, to recover the purchase price of 1,600 gallons of shingle stain, sold by the plaintiff to the defendants at thirty cents per gallon.\nThe defendants were engaged in the construction of sixteen frame cottages and two brick buildings for the Tuberculosis Sanitarium of the city of Chicago, and the shingle stain in question was to be used in staining the shingles on said cottages. The specifications under which the cottages and buildings were being constructed required a certain brand of shingle stain\u2014 \u201cCabot\u2019s No. 320\u201d\u2014to be used in staining the shingles on said cottages. The plaintiff made a proposition to the defendants that it would furnish them with a shingle stain of the same composition and color as \u201cCabot\u2019s No. 320\u201d at thirty cents per gallon. The defendants accepted this offer by letter. The plaintiff delivered 1,600 gallons of the stain to the defendants, and after the latter had used 60 or 65 gallons of the said stain they were notified by the architects to stop using it as it was not the kind of stain (Cabot\u2019s No. 320) called for by the specifications. Thereupon, the defendants stopped using the stain furnished by the plaintiff and notified the plaintiff to remove the remainder of the same from the premises of the defendants and refused to pay the plaintiff for any of the stain delivered. The case was tried before the court without a jury, the issues were found for the plaintiff, and the damages were assessed at $512. Judgment was entered on the finding and this writ of error followed.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 328 \u2014what is question for jury. In an action to recover the purchase price of a quantity of shingle stain, required to be of a certain composition and color, the question whether such stain conformed with the requirements was one of fact.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 267 \u2014when finding of court proper. Where a contract for the purchase of shingle stain required the stain to conform in composition and color to a specified brand, the evidence was held to support a finding that the stain which was sold was of the proper composition and colors as required by the contract, and the fact that the stain furnished was in fact superior to the brand specified would not make the finding inconsistent, there being evidence that any difference in the stains was due to mixing and preparation rather than to any difference in composition and color.\nWalter A. Lantz, for plaintiffs in error.\nMeyer Shapiro, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0038-01",
  "first_page_order": 64,
  "last_page_order": 65
}