{
  "id": 5375496,
  "name": "George C. Nimmons, Appellee, v. Lyon & Healy, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Nimmons v. Lyon & Healy",
  "decision_date": "1916-01-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,387",
  "first_page": "376",
  "last_page": "377",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 376"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2161,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.890407190962283e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46040058706125336
    },
    "sha256": "2f6a662b44433c1b612efa600dfdd998e290b4ae049ef1b09922959cbbe3a444",
    "simhash": "1:1dc5013f26fdb268",
    "word_count": 365
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George C. Nimmons, Appellee, v. Lyon & Healy, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Estoppel, \u00a7 63*\u2014when presentation of hill for amount less than contract price not. estoppel to recover contract price. An architect who agrees to draw plans and specifications for a building for a certain price may not be denied a lien for the contract price, upon performance of the contract, because he presented a bill for a lesser amount, where such bill was intended as a compromise and was not accepted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William B. Jarvis, for appellant.",
      "G. Fred Bush and Walter S. Holden, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George C. Nimmons, Appellee, v. Lyon & Healy, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,387.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1416 :\u2014when master\u2019s finding entitled to same weight as that of jury. The findings of fact by a master in chancery must be given the same weight by the Appellate Court as would the verdict of a jury in a suit at law.\n2. Mechanics\u2019 liens, \u00a7 21 \u2014when architect entitled to mechanic\u2019s lien. An architect who draws plans and' specifications for a building to be erected upon a designated spot performs services for the purpose of building it so as to be entitled to a mechanic\u2019s lien, even though he does not superintend the construction of the building, and even though a building of the same identical character is not erected.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 3, 1916.\nCertiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by George C. Nimmons, complainant, against Lyon & Healy, a corporation, defendant, to enforce a mechanic\u2019s lien for architect\u2019s fees claimed to be due from defendant for preparing, making and drawing certain plans or preliminary sketches for a factory building. From a judgment of the chancellor confirming the report of the master, to whom the cause had been referred, and granting a lien to complainant for the amount recommended by the master, defendant appeals.\nWilliam B. Jarvis, for appellant.\nG. Fred Bush and Walter S. Holden, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and. Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0376-01",
  "first_page_order": 398,
  "last_page_order": 399
}