{
  "id": 5415842,
  "name": "James J. White & Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Bertha N. de Tarnowsky, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "James J. White & Co. v. de Tarnowsky",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,444",
  "first_page": "234",
  "last_page": "236",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 234"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 2800,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "sha256": "bb672b441d43ea350129ac5f458678b99ebcf3a3d74e2a1b2a84b2a05b1da8a7",
    "simhash": "1:4d634a13ec8fb2dd",
    "word_count": 464
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James J. White & Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Bertha N. de Tarnowsky, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Contracts, \u00a7 44 \u2014what essential 'to make a contract where acceptance varies -from offer. To make a contract a proposition must be unconditionally accepted, and interpolation in the acceptance of any new condition or any departure from the exact terms of the proposition constitutes a new offer, and before the parties are bound such new offer must be unconditionally accepted by the party making the original proposition.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Auden, Latham & Young, for plaintiff in error; Charles Martin, of counsel.",
      "Helmer, Moulton, Whitman & Whitman, for defendant in error; Charles B. Holton, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James J. White & Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Bertha N. de Tarnowsky, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 22,444.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon.. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and judgment of nil capiat here.\nOpinion filed December 18, 1916.\nRehearing denied December 29, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by James J. White & Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Bertha N. de Tarnowsky, defendant, on a contract. To review a judgment against the defendant for an amount less than deemed adequate by the plaintiff, the latter prosecutes a writ of error.\nOn May 31,1913, defendant made a written proposal to plaintiff to have it insert in a volume of its encyclopedia \u201ca full page half tone portrait to accompany the biography of William Penn Nixon,\u201d etc. There are some indorsements on the back and made a part of the contract, among which Was: \u201cWill decide soon and send photo desired.\u201d While plaintiff thereafter acknowledged to defendant the receipt of her order, the acceptance was not in the terms of the order, but varied from it in a material particular. On July 2, 1913, defendant canceled the order by mail. The acceptance ignored the condition that defendant reserved the right to send a photo from which the half tone should be made, and put forth a new condition, viz., that the contract price should be payable \u201con submission of proof.\u201d This new condition interpolated by plaintiff was never accepted by defendant.\nAuden, Latham & Young, for plaintiff in error; Charles Martin, of counsel.\nHelmer, Moulton, Whitman & Whitman, for defendant in error; Charles B. Holton, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Contracts, \u00a7 385 \u2014when evidence does not show acceptance of offer. In an action on an alleged contract whereby the defendant was to pay the plaintiff for the insertion of a portrait of the defendant\u2019s father in a book published by the plaintiff, evidence held to show that the defendant\u2019s offer had not been accepted in terms by the plaintiff and that no contract came into existence.\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": "0234-01",
  "first_page_order": 260,
  "last_page_order": 262
}