{
  "id": 2875092,
  "name": "Herman Cohn, Appellee, v. Flanagan & Biedenweg Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cohn v. Flanagan & Biedenweg Co.",
  "decision_date": "1915-12-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,989",
  "first_page": "491",
  "last_page": "496",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 491"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 450,
    "char_count": 7842,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "sha256": "50e864df5ebc005a98d901cec7644c7c1422ebd8028d0d561bbf467c8524cac9",
    "simhash": "1:235b0529b29926e0",
    "word_count": 1323
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Herman Cohn, Appellee, v. Flanagan & Biedenweg Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Scanlan"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William J. Stapleton, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Herman Cohn, Appellee, v. Flanagan & Biedenweg Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,989.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Edward M. Mangan, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 8, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Herman Cohn, plaintiff, against the Flanagan & Biedenweg Company, a corporation, defendant, in the Superior Court of Cook county, to recover on a written contract. From a judgment for plaintiff for $115, defendant appeals.\nThe defendant contracted with St. John\u2019s Church in Jacksonville, Florida, to furnish the windows for its church, and it then entered into the following contract with the plaintiff:\n\u201cThe Flanagan & Biedenweg Company.\nArtists\u2014Stained Class\nChicago, March 2,1906.\nWe, The Flanagan & Biedenweg Co., agree to pay to Herman Cohn Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00), for setting all of the glass in St. John\u2019s Church at Jacksonville, Fla., as per plans and specifications.\nHe, Herman Cohn, is to furnish all the necessary material excepting glass and lead, and to place same in position, including sixty-seven ventilators to the satisfaction of the committee. The work to be set in stone.\nHe is to use cement of the best quality obtainable in Jacksonville and the best grade of putty, if putty is selected by the committee and all work to be left clean and to the satisfaction of the church committee.\nWe, the Flanagan & Biedenweg Co., to be in no way held responsible for any expenses in the delay of shipment by the railroad company.\n(Corporate Seal.)\nThe Flanagan & Biedenweg Co.\nJoseph E. Flanagan, President (Sign)\nHerman Cohn (Sign)\u201d\nThe plaintiff went to Jacksonville in March, 1906, and began work under the contract. On March 13th, after the plaintiff had completed about one-third of the work, the committee of the said church complained that a certain portion of the glass then on the grounds was too dark in color and, according to the plaintiff, ordered him not to use the same. The plaintiff immediately telegraphed the defendant as follows: \u201cDark glass rejected, send other, can\u2019t wait. Coming back.\u201d The next morning he received the following telegram from the defendant: \u201cGlass made special at factory from their sample, is correct. Don\u2019t come back unless at your own cost till further orders. Letter follows.\u201d On March 15, 1906, the plaintiff received from the defendant the following letter:\n\u201cMarch 13, 1906.\nMr. H. Cohn, c/o Bond & Bours Go., Jacksonville, Fla.\nDear | Sir:\u2014\nWe received your telegram at 4:40 p. m. this day, the 13th, as follows: \u2018Dark glass rejected, send other, can\u2019t wait\u2014coming back\u2019 and we wired you as follows: \u2018 Glass made special at factory from their sample is correct. Don\u2019t come back unless at your own cost till further orders. Letter follows.\u2019 We also telegraphed Bond & Bours Co. as follows: \u2018Cohn telegraphed glass rejected. Too dark. Glass made from your sample at factory. Glass O. K.o Cannot accept rejection on that ground. Letter follows.\u2019\nYou have no authority to take it upon yourself to say anything about the glass being rejected. You are only there for the purpose of setting the glass and if there is anything of this kind to be said it must come from the people who are buying the goods. . We cannot regard you but as a hired man setting the work, therefore, you should not take the responsibility of sending the telegram.\nWe wish to state that this glass was made special for this job from a sample received from Bond & Bours Co., Jacksonville, Fla., and was sent to the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. at Chicago who reserved the sample as it was sent in to the factory to be made after sample, the glass was made after same and is the same commercial number as known throughout the U. S. and it is the same as sample now furnished for the windows in St. John\u2019s Church, Jacksonville, Fla. I am enclosing herewith a small piece taken from the sample which I shall use for reference showing the small piece of the glass that may be compared with their sample.\nThe only difference there might be is the question of thickness. We have compared it with our sample and find it O. K. also compared it with the Pittsburgh Plate Class Co. \u2019s sample and find it O. K. There must be some mistake. But it is well known that when cathedral glass is leaded in flat lead that the flat lead has the effect of giving it a darker appearance and it is darker in appearance in large sheets than it is in small sheets.\nWe do not propose to accept a rejection on technicalities, furthermore, we will not stand any expense of yonr returning unless the officials at Jacksonville give satisfactory reasons and refuse to allow you to set the work in place in writing, this will give us an opportunity for action, but do not take any verbal reasons for stopping this order, it must be in writing and in such clear language that there will be no question on your part about returning to Chicago. We hold that we have fulfilled our contract and the responsibility will have to develop on the other end as to rejection.\nVery truly yours,\nThe Flanagan & Biedenweg Co.\u201d\nThe glass objected to by the church authorities constituted only a small proportion of the total used in the work.\nImmediately upon the receipt of this letter the plaintiff returned to Chicago, arriving there on March 16th. When he left Jacksonville, all the material necessary to complete the job to the satisfaction of the church people was on the ground. Telegrams and letters had passed between the defendant and the church people, and the trouble in reference to the color of the glass was settled at once, and the church people requested the plaintiff to remain and finish the work. The plaintiff admitted that he knew that the defendant was financially responsible and well able to pay any damage that he might suffer by reason of the delay. When the plaintiff left Jacksonville, the defendant immediately sent an employee to complete the work covered by the contract with the plaintiff. This employee arrived in Jacksonville on March 17,1906; found all the material necessary to complete the work on the ground, and the work was completed under his supervision. The defendant claimed that the work done by the plaintiff was very unsatisfactory, and that it expended, altogether, $398.19 in completing the work the plaintiff had contracted to perform, and that after allowing the plaintiff the amount of his contract, $200, there was a balance due the defendant of $198.19.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Contracts, \u00a7 387 \u2014when evidence insufficient to sustain judgment. In an action to recover on a contract for setting glass, evidence held insufficient to sustain a judgment for plaintiff, it being clearly apparent from the evidence that plaintiff abandoned the contract without just cause.\n2. Contracts, \u00a7 282 \u2014when contractor not entitled to abandon contract because of delay. A contractor whose performance is slightly delayed by the fault of a contractee is not justified thereby in abandoning the contract.\n3. Contracts, \u00a7 282 \u2014when party not entitled to abandon contract because of neglect. A slight or partial neglect by one of the parties to a contract, not defeating the object of the contract or rendering it unattainable, will not justify the other party in abandoning the agreement, for the reason that to justify such abandonment the failure of the opposite party must be total, and that for partial noncompliance in matters not necessarily of the first importance, the party injured must seek his remedy upon the contract.\nWilliam J. Stapleton, for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0491-01",
  "first_page_order": 517,
  "last_page_order": 522
}