{
  "id": 2872030,
  "name": "American Heating & Plumbing Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. William E. Salomon & Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "American Heating & Plumbing Corp. v. William E. Salomon & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-11-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,606",
  "first_page": "297",
  "last_page": "299",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 297"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 299,
    "char_count": 4972,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "sha256": "96f0c107331757a88a773bde8519b3236b22aaf5365a457af439181663fa037c",
    "simhash": "1:ab58aa38988bb0ff",
    "word_count": 833
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "American Heating & Plumbing Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. William E. Salomon & Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1471 \u2014when admission of parol evidence not ground for reversal. In an action on a written contract where both parties offer parol evidence as to the meaning given by the trade to a certain phrase, neither party can avail of any objection to such evidence on appeal.\n3. Contracts, \u00a7 198 \u2014what interpretation to be given to trade term. In an action on a contract for installing a heating and ventilating plant, a provision calling for the payment of a certain part of the contract price \u201cwhen steam is turned on plant\u201d is to be construed in accordance with the significance given to the term by the trade.\n4. Contracts, \u00a7 198 \u2014how trade term construed. The provision in \u00e1 contract for installing a heating and ventilating plant that the second instalment of the purchase price shall be paid \u201cwhen steam is turned on plant\u201d is to be construed as meaning when steam is generated in the boiler, circulates through the steam mains and branches leading to the radiators, and the plant is in operation.\n5. Contracts, \u00a7 246 \u2014when certificate not essential to payment of part of contract price. If the contract makes no provision that a certificate of the superintendent, that the instalment of the contract price is due, shall be procured before the payment of the instalment, such a certificate is not prerequisite to a right to demand the payment of such instalment where the terms of the contract have been complied with and the work performed.\n6. Mechanics\u2019 liens, \u00a7 61 \u2014when Act not applicable to subcontractor. Section 5 of the Mechanic\u2019s Lien Act (J. & A. \u00b6 7143) does not apply to subcontractors.\n7. Mechanics\u2019 liens, \u00a766 \u2014when verified statement by subcontractor not necessary. A request for a verified statement from a subcontractor under section 22 of the Mechanic\u2019s Lien Act (J. & A. If 7160) comes too late when made after the subcontractor has abandoned the contract for the other party\u2019s breach, and letters thereafter written making such request are inadmissible.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. S. Dudley, for plaintiff in error; William R. Wiley, of counsel.",
      "Francis E. Croarkin, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "American Heating & Plumbing Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. William E. Salomon & Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,606.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and judgment here.\nOpinion filed November 1, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nThe defendant, the general contractor for the building of the \u201cIris Theater\u201d at No. 5743 West Chicago avenue in Chicago, on the 29th day of November, 1913, entered into a contract with plaintiff for the installing of a heating and ventilating plant in said \u201cIris Theater.\u201d The contract price was $2,700, which was to be paid, $1,000 \u201cwhen boiler and radiators are delivered on the premises,\u201d a like amount \u201cwhen steam is turned on plant,\u201d and the remainder \u201ctwenty days after plant is completed, tested and accepted by superintendents.\u201d The amount involved in this suit is the $1,000 payable \u201cwhen steam is turned on plant.\u201d The defenses interposed are that plaintiff has neither complied with nor completed its contract; that no money is due plaintiff under the contract and -that plaintiff has failed to comply with the mechanic\u2019s lien law of the State. The hearing was before the court, who found the issues for the defendant and entered a judgment of nil capiat and for costs against plaintiff, who brings this writ of error in an effort to reverse that judgment.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 361 \u2014when parol evidence admissible to show meaning of technical terms. Parol evidence is admissible to show that certain words and phrases used in a contract have a known and established meaning among dealers engaged in the class of trade which is the subject of the contract.\nThe first payment of $1,000 was made in accord with the contract without any question or dispute. The first contention of plaintiff is that the provision for the payment of the sum here demanded, \u201cwhen steam is turned on plant,\u201d m\u00e9ans, by interpretation, when steam is generated in the boiler, circulates through the steam mains and branches leading to the radiators, with steam in the radiators, and the plant is in operation. Plaintiff maintains that the term \u201cwhen steam is turned on plant\u201d is a trade term, having a significance known to the trade, which significance, under well-settled principles of law, is to be ascertained and followed as entering into the contract , and as being presumably known to the parties at the time the contract was made. The parties introduced evidence of witnesses to sustain their respective contentions.\nJ. S. Dudley, for plaintiff in error; William R. Wiley, of counsel.\nFrancis E. Croarkin, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0297-01",
  "first_page_order": 323,
  "last_page_order": 325
}