{
  "id": 2869829,
  "name": "Butcher Folding Crate Company, Defendant in Error, v. S. T. Fish, trading as S. T. Fish & Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Butcher Folding Crate Co. v. Fish",
  "decision_date": "1915-11-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,625",
  "first_page": "243",
  "last_page": "245",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 243"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 249,
    "char_count": 3499,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "sha256": "989616e612a63537409f8b137f693f38c6b232b6bf5138421a345f55c82acaec",
    "simhash": "1:875eca1417e333ed",
    "word_count": 586
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Butcher Folding Crate Company, Defendant in Error, v. S. T. Fish, trading as S. T. Fish & Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Benjamin C. Bachrach and Arthur C. Bachrach, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Albert E. Lucius and Edward B. Lucius, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Butcher Folding Crate Company, Defendant in Error, v. S. T. Fish, trading as S. T. Fish & Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,625.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 1, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Butcher Folding. Crate Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against S. T. Fish, trading as S. T. Fish & Company, defendant, to recover for crates sold and delivered. There was a judgment for plaintiff for $672.18, to reverse which defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nThe evidence tended to show that in March, 1911, plaintiff\u2019s president made a verbal contract with the defendant for about 30,000 crates at seventeen cents each, to be shipped to Asherton, Texas, to be used by-onion growers there who were shipping onions to defendant. Defendant testified that his firm was' to collect for plaintiff the price of the crates from the growers as they were shipped to defendant, which was denied by plaintiff. Plaintiff proceeded to make shipments and had delivered some 18,000 or more crates when it was advised on account of the market being bad to stop shipments. It thereafter agreed to release the defendant from liability for the balance of crates, about 10,000, contracted for and shipped but not delivered. On June 30th plaintiff\u2019s president called at the office of defendant for the purpose of procuring a settlement for all crates that had been shipped, and it was then ascertained that there was a balance due plaintiff of $821, not taking into account certain crates which had been delivered to one Obets, an onion grower who was marketing his crop through the defendant. The number of these Obets crates was about 4,354. As the result of the conversation at this time a written contract was entered into as follows:\n\u201cIn consideration of accepting S. T. Fish &. Company\u2019s check A3214 for Eight Hunded Twenty-one Dollars, it is understood that the balance of the crates, 4354 crates, delivered to Charles Obets at Asherton, Texas, are to be returned to the onion platform at Asherton; and if any shortage, when delivery is made to the platform, from, above number, S. T. Fish & Company agree to make good.\n(Signed),\nS. T. Fish & Company.\nAccepted: Butcher Folding Crate Company.\u201d There was evidence tending to show that on or after the date of this agreement the only crates returned to the platform by Obets, or on his behalf, were 400, which were afterwards sold by Obets and were never received by plaintiff. It was shown that Obets received about 6,500 crates, used for his own crop about 2,400 and made two sales to other growers, one of about 2,666 and the other of 1,600, which were hauled directly from his farm to the premises of the purchasers.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nSales, \u00a7 329 \u2014when evidence sufficient to support verdict. Evidence in action to recover for purchase price of goods sold and delivered, examined and held to support the verdict.\nThe principal defense was the return of the crates by Obets under the agreement. Defendant also contended that there was no consideration for the agreement.\nBenjamin C. Bachrach and Arthur C. Bachrach, for plaintiff in error.\nAlbert E. Lucius and Edward B. Lucius, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0243-01",
  "first_page_order": 269,
  "last_page_order": 271
}