{
  "id": 2964821,
  "name": "White City Electric Company, Defendant in Error, v. Maurice Fleckles, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "White City Electric Co. v. Fleckles",
  "decision_date": "1916-10-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,630",
  "first_page": "459",
  "last_page": "460",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 459"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1709,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "sha256": "937bb1941ea6e3b3834405b2376c142c8868b3d8c4527e173185a8331caecf49",
    "simhash": "1:c9532421120f8fbc",
    "word_count": 279
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "White City Electric Company, Defendant in Error, v. Maurice Fleckles, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward Maher, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Cleland, Lee & Phelps, for defendant in error; Lester E. Lee, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "White City Electric Company, Defendant in Error, v. Maurice Fleckles, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,630.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry Olson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 10, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the White City Electric Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Maurice Fleckles, defendant, for work done by the plaintiff on the defendant\u2019s building. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Building and construction contracts, \u00a7 103 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show ratification of orders for extra work. In an action for extra work done by the plaintiff on the defendant\u2019s building, evidence held sufficient to show that the defendant\u2019s architect had authority to order the work done and that he had delegated such authority to the defendant\u2019s manager and ratified orders given by him, and that the defendant had knowledge of and did not object to the work as done.\n2. Building and construction contracts, \u00a7 31*\u2014when evidence sufficient to show waiver of provision for written order for extra work. In an action for extra work done by the plaintiff on the defendant\u2019s building, evidence held to show that a provision in a written contract that all orders for extras should be in writing, had been waived.\nEdward Maher, for plaintiff in error.\nCleland, Lee & Phelps, for defendant in error; Lester E. Lee, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0459-01",
  "first_page_order": 501,
  "last_page_order": 502
}