{
  "id": 2859933,
  "name": "P. A. Johnson, Plaintiff in Error, v. Paul Feyrirsen, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. Feyrirsen",
  "decision_date": "1916-03-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,684",
  "first_page": "367",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 367"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 3403,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "sha256": "acd91b8d72708fbd9adb65aefd9ceea217d543e36cdabd94d7f26a91e8bfced4",
    "simhash": "1:857455b11bac3839",
    "word_count": 584
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "P. A. Johnson, Plaintiff in Error, v. Paul Feyrirsen, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Damages, \u00a7 66 \u2014what is measure of for delay in performance of building contract. The measure of damages for delay in performance of a building contract which the owner may recoup in a suit against him by the contractor is the fair rental value from the time when the premises should have been completed under the terms of the contract until the time of completion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kremer & Greenfield, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "P. A. Johnson, Plaintiff in Error, v. Paul Feyrirsen, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 21,684.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Arthur J. Gray, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed and judgment here for $717.58 for plaintiff.\nOpinion filed March 27, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by P. A. Johnson, plaintiff, against Paul Feyrirsen, defendant, for balance of contract price due under terms of contract to erect building. From a judgment allowing him $404.90, after the deduction of damages for defendant\u2019s recoupment, plaintiff brings error.\nPlaintiff had a contract to do certain work in the erection of a building for defendant and after all the work had been done received an architect\u2019s certificate for $671, the balance of the contract price. By the terms of the contract plaintiff agreed to complete all the work he had undertaken to do on or prior to August 25, 1914. As a matter of fact this he failed as to one store to do. The work of plaintiff on this store was completed on September 15, 1914, a delay of twenty-one days. Defendant claimed that he had rented this store to a tenant who had paid $5 on account to bind the bargain, at a rental of $35 a month, which was the reasonable rental value of the store.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Set-off and kecoupment, \u00a7 18 \u2014when owner of building may recoup damages for delay in action by contractor. Where a defendant claims damages by reason of delay in the performance of a building contract, whereby such defendant has been deprived of the use of the building, he may recoup the same in a suit against him by the contractor.\nDefendant testified that he never saw this prospective tenant again and was unable to find him. The store remained unrented until May 15, 1915, and defendant claimed that the loss of the prospective tenant was due to the store not being ready for occupancy by such tenant at the time plaintiff had contracted to complete his work. Defendant claimed that the measure of his damages was the rental value of the store during the time it remained unrented, and the trial judge, heeding defendant\u2019s contention, gave judgment for $404.90, the amount of the architect\u2019s certificate, less the rental value of the store at the rate of $35 a month from August 25, 1914, when plaintiff\u2019s work should have been completed, to May 15, 1915, when defendant succeeded in securing a tenant. Plaintiff asked for a reversal and a judgment in his favor for the amount of the architect\u2019s certificate with interest, less the rental value of the store for twenty-one days, defendant\u2019s damages assessable for noncompletion within the contract time.\nKremer & Greenfield, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance 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": "0367-01",
  "first_page_order": 391,
  "last_page_order": 393
}