{
  "id": 5414928,
  "name": "Frank I. Bennett et al., trading as Highlands Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John Sydney Baxter, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bennett v. Baxter",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,449",
  "first_page": "236",
  "last_page": "237",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 236"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 3048,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "sha256": "25c58272eb4e642ba5236f5cd4ab3326d1f5b75fe05f3d358925b065826160b0",
    "simhash": "1:3253510bf89f9edc",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank I. Bennett et al., trading as Highlands Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John Sydney Baxter, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr, Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Accord and satisfaction, \u00a7 3 \u2014what is essential to mate accord and satisfaction a defense. Where a defendant resisted recovery on the ground that one of the plaintiffs had released him from payment of a certain interest charge, held that, inasmuch as there was no dispute as to the amount owing, there could be no accord and satisfaction on payment of an amount less than that due as there was no consideration for the promise.\n2. Judgment, \u00a7 208*\u2014when judgment non obstante veredicto properly entered. Where the defense embodied in an affidavit of merits does not state facts, which, if uncontroverted, would entitle the defendant to prevail, a judgment non obstante veredicto should be entered on the plaintiffs\u2019 motion.\n3. Accord and satisfaction, \u00a7 7*\u2014When affidavit of merits setting up is insufficient. Where an affidavit of merits stated that there was an accounting between the plaintiffs and the defendant and the amount of the defendant\u2019s indebtedness settled in such accounting, that such amount was to be secured by a mortgage and that the negotiation of the mortgage resulted in the payment of commissions, without stating to whom the commissions were paid, held that as such expense, unexplained, was the mortgagor\u2019s, and no intendment to the contrary could be indulged in the absence of any direct statement concerning it, the affidavit presented to meritorious defense,' and that the plaintiffs\u2019 motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto should have been granted.\n4. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1810*\u2014when judgment on reversal entered in Appellate Court. Where, in an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago, the amount claimed by the plaintiffs was liquidated, fixed and ascertained and the defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits did not state a valid defense, a judgment for the defendant was reversed and judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed together with interest to the filing of the opinion was entered in the Appellate Court. .",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr, Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Church, Shepard & Day, for plaintiffs in error; Howard W. Lewis, of counsel.",
      "John J. Beilman, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank I. Bennett et al., trading as Highlands Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. John Sydney Baxter, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 22,449.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Court-net, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and judgment here for $127.57.\nOpinion filed December 18, 1916.\nRehearing denied December 29, 1916.\nStatement of the Cage.\nAction by Frank I. Bennett, George R. Bennett, Charles J. Bonr, Clyde L. Day, Frank B. Harrimon, Luther W. Conover, Edward P. Skene, William J. Harahan, David W. Ross, Samuel G. Hatch and Francis B. Bowes, \u25a0 trading as Highlands Company, plaintiffs, against John Sydney Baxter, defendant. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs prosecute a writ of error.\nChurch, Shepard & Day, for plaintiffs in error; Howard W. Lewis, of counsel.\nJohn J. Beilman, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0236-01",
  "first_page_order": 262,
  "last_page_order": 263
}