{
  "id": 2974759,
  "name": "A. H. Whitsett and R. C. Whitsett, copartners, trading as R. C. Whitsett Coal & Mining Company, Appellees, v. Chicago Washed Coal Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitsett v. Chicago Washed Coal Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-06-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,299",
  "first_page": "522",
  "last_page": "525",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 522"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 362,
    "char_count": 7256,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "sha256": "03a7f1175d1a2c08f91897b1ba1d1d547e8d613743240da12c7008698e0471d6",
    "simhash": "1:abc5fbb7445b4ae5",
    "word_count": 1240
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:30.955611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. H. Whitsett and R. C. Whitsett, copartners, trading as R. C. Whitsett Coal & Mining Company, Appellees, v. Chicago Washed Coal Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George C. Otto, for appellant.",
      "Pomeroy & Martin, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. H. Whitsett and R. C. Whitsett, copartners, trading as R. C. Whitsett Coal & Mining Company, Appellees, v. Chicago Washed Coal Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,299.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county;, the Hon. J. J. Cooke, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.\nReversed and judgment here.\nOpinion originally filed June 1, 1916.\nRehearing allowed and opinion filed June 16, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction in assumpsit by A. H. Whitsett and B. C. Whitsett, copartners, trading as B. C. Whitsett Coal & Mining Company, plaintiffs, against Chicago Washed Coal Company, defendant, to recover for certain coal sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.\nThe declaration consists of the common counts. In plaintiffs\u2019 affidavit of claim, subscribed by B. C. Whit-sett, it was stated, in substance, that certain Illinois Mine Bun coal (number of pounds specified) was sold and delivered to defendant on January 4, 6, 7 and 8, 1910, and 52,100 pounds of Indiana Mine Bun coal on January 8, 1910; that the fair market price of the Illinois coal at the time and place of delivery was $1.15 per ton, and of the Indiana coal $2.55 per ton; and that \u201cthere is due to the plaintiffs from the defendant, after allowing to it all just credits, deductions, and set-offs, $348.19 for said shipments of coal, and interest at 5% to date, amounting to $85.55, making a total amount due of $433.74.\u201d On January 12, 1915, the defendant filed a plea of the general issue and also a plea of set-off. In the latter plea it was alleged that \u201cplaintiffs were before and at the time of the commencement of this suit, and still are, indebted to it, the defendant, in the sum of $10,023.35 for damages sustained by it.\u201d It was then alleged that on December 24, \u00cd909, plaintiffs made a written proposal to defendant, which proposal was on the same day accepted in writing by defendant. Said proposal was set out in haec verba in the plea, which was to the effect that plaintiffs offered to furnish defendant \u201cfrom December 28, 1909, to March 30, 1910,\u201d two specified grades of coal from a mine at Ward, Illinois, \u201c50 tons per day\u201d of one grade, and \u201c100 tons per day\u201d of the other grade, at certain named prices, \u201cf. o. b. mines,\u201d and that mine weights were to govern settlements, which settlements were \u201cto be made on or before the 10th day of each month for all shipments made during the preceding month.\u201d It was further alleged in said plea, in substance, that the claim mentioned in plaintiffs\u2019 declaration grew out of said proposal and acceptance; that on January 18, 1910, plaintiffs refused to further carry out said agreement and so notified defendant; that notwithstanding the defendant was at all times willing and able to perform its part of said agreement, plaintiffs would not and did not make any further deliveries of coal under said agreement and refused to deliver the remainder of the coal, to wit, 13,229 tons; and that by reason thereof defendant had sustained damages in said sum of $10,023.35, which sum exceeded the damages sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of the nonperformance by the defendant of the several supposed promises in said declaration mentioned, and out of which sum defendant was ready and willing and hereby offered to set off and allow to the plaintiff the full amount of plaintiffs\u2019 damages, if any. With said pleas there was also filed an affidavit of merits, subscribed by an agent of defendant, in which it was stated that the nature of the defendant\u2019s defense was as in the last plea above stated and set forth. i\nOn January 19, 1915, the defendant filed a verified petition praying that the venue of the suit be changed to the Municipal Court of Chicago. It was alleged in the petition that defendant \u201cinstituted suit\u201d (it was not stated when) in said Municipal Court to recover damages of plaintiffs in said sum of $10,023.35 by reason of the breach of said agreement and that said suit was still pending; that the present suit in the County Court was brought by plaintiffs to recover the \u201cvalue of the unpaid portion of the coal delivered\u201d under said agreement; that defendant had filed said plea of set-off; that the amount involved in the \u201ccontroversy\u201d exceeded $1,000, and that the County Court could not render judgment in favor of defendant for the amount claimed by it; and that, therefore, the present suit had been commenced in the wrong court. On January 30, 1915, a hearing was had on said petition to transfer said cause to said Municipal Court, and the same was denied and defendant excepted.\nOn February 3, 1915, plaintiffs filed a demurrer to said plea of set-off, stating as a cause of demurrer that defendant claimed a sum of money in excess of the jurisdiction of the court. On February 6, 1915, on the several motions of plaintiffs, after due notice to defendant and after hearing arguments of the respective counsel, the court struck from the files the defendant\u2019s said plea of set-off, also defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits, and also defendant\u2019s plea of general issue for want of the support of a sufficient affidavit of merits, to all of which actions of the court the defendant excepted. It did not appear that defendant offered to file any further or additional affidavit of merits. Thereupon the court entered judgment against the defendant for the sum of $433.74, and defendant excepted and prayed and perfected this appeal.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Courts, \u00a7 100 \u2014when jurisdiction of County Court not defeated by set-off claiming sum in excess of jurisdiction. A County Court has jurisdiction of an action where the amount claimed is less than $1,000, and this jurisdiction cannot be defeated by the filing of a set-off claiming a sum greatly in excess of $1,000.\n2. Pleading, \u00a7 367*\u2014when plea of set-off claiming sum in excess of court\u2019s jurisdiction properly stricken from files. A plea of set-off in an action in the County Court is properly stricken from the files where it claims a sum beyond the court\u2019s jurisdiction.\n3. Pleading, \u00a7 367*\u2014when affidavit of merits properly stricken from files. An affidavit of merits is properly stricken from the files which states that the nature of defendant\u2019s defense to plaintiffs\u2019 claim is as stated in its plea of set-off, and such plea does not set forth any defense to plaintiffs\u2019 claim but rather a cross-claim or action against plaintiffs of which the court has no jurisdiction.\n4. Judgment, \u00a7 108*\u2014when plea of general issue may be stricken from files and judgment entered for plaintiff on affidavit of claim. Where defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits is stricken from the files as insufficient and he does not offer to file any further affidavit of merits, defendant\u2019s plea of the general issue may be stricken from the files and judgment entered for plaintiffs in the amount claimed to be due in his affidavit of claim.\n5. Interest, \u00a7 19*\u2014when not recoverable. Interest is not recoverable on unliquidated demands.\nGeorge C. Otto, for appellant.\nPomeroy & Martin, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola\u00bb XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0522-01",
  "first_page_order": 544,
  "last_page_order": 547
}