{
  "id": 5374563,
  "name": "Home Instructor Publishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Blumenstock Brothers, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Home Instructor Publishing Co. v. Blumenstock Bros.",
  "decision_date": "1916-01-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,502",
  "first_page": "583",
  "last_page": "584",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 583"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 212,
    "char_count": 3333,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "sha256": "b88acc8d92fc698cc8ac2c7402d64e0667c7cf43da9bbe06eb4717ca189281ee",
    "simhash": "1:29133a03688b50dc",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Home Instructor Publishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Blumenstock Brothers, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fyffe, Ryner & Dale, for plaintiff in error.",
      "L. H. Craig, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Home Instructor Publishing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Blumenstock Brothers, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,502.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Perry L. Persons, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 31, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Home Instructor Publishing Company, plaintiff, against Blumenstock Brothers, a corporation, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover for advertising. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $228.95, defendant prosecutes this writ of error..\nPlaintiff published a paper called \u201cThe Home Instructor,\u201d and contracted with defendant to advertise the product of the American Cereal Coffee Company. The order called for the insertion in the October edition 1914, the price to be 68 cents a line, less commission. The advertisement appeared in the October edition. A provision in the order was as follows:\n\u201cThis order is placed with the understanding that the cost per sale will not exceed the average cost of other mail order mediums used by this advertiser. That this and other copy not exceeding 387 lines will be repeated in the Dec. or any later issue if necessary without charge in order to produce orders at the average cost.\u201d\nThe advertisement had a coupon or form of order with a \u201ckey number\u201d attached, which purchasers' detached and forwarded to the coffee company. In this way account was kept of the sales resulting through the advertisement. It appeared that plaintiff was ready and willing to carry out its obligation to continue the advertisement, but was ordered by defendant not to run it after the October issue.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Contracts, \u00a7 219 \u2014how contract for advertising construed. In an action to recover on a contract for advertising, a provision in the contract that \u201cthis order is placed with the understanding that the cost per sale will not exceed the \u2019 average cost of other mail order mediums used by this advertiser. That this and other copy not exceeding 387 lines will be repeated in the Dec., or any later issue if necessary without charge in order to produce orders at the average cost,\u201d held to be construed as an undertaking to continue the advertisement without further cost until the results to the advertiser, considering cost, were equal to the results obtained from other papers.\n2. Damages, \u00a7 57 \u2014when advertiser liable for contract price of advertising. In an action to recover on a contract for advertising, where the contract provided that the advertisement should be continued without additional cost in subsequent issues of plaintiff\u2019s publication until the results to the advertiser, considering cost, were equal to the results obtained from advertisements in other papers, but where, after one publication, defendant ordered plaintiff not to insert the advertisement again, defendant is liable for the contract price, although it made but one sale as a result of the advertisement, plaintiff not being accountable for failure to perform in such case.\nFyffe, Ryner & Dale, for plaintiff in error.\nL. H. Craig, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, game topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0583-01",
  "first_page_order": 605,
  "last_page_order": 606
}