{
  "id": 2949895,
  "name": "A. M. Chesbrough, Defendant in Error, v. Jacob Lanski, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chesbrough v. Lanski",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,509",
  "first_page": "192",
  "last_page": "193",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 192"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 2057,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "sha256": "e2b991aa598ccd7902f62b57782c72079c92bd42601bc80af756e931d843fa97",
    "simhash": "1:8342c22df00da2ad",
    "word_count": 353
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. M. Chesbrough, Defendant in Error, v. Jacob Lanski, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuels & Samuels, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Scott, Bancroft, Martin & Stephens, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. M. Chesbrough, Defendant in Error, v. Jacob Lanski, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,509.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh J. Kearns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 19, 1917.\nRehearing denied March 5, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by A. M. Chesbrough, plaintiff, against Jacob Lanski, defendant, to recover the price of a quantity of scrap iron delivered to the defendant under a contract of purchase. From a judgment for plaintiff for one hundred and ninety dollars, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 138 \u2014when buyer cannot complain of refusal of seller to make delivery. Where the defendant offered to purchase scrap iron of the plaintiff at a certain price per ton, and to take all the plaintiff had at that price, and plaintiff delivered one carload of the iron but refused to deliver more until that was paid for, which the defendant refused to do unless the plaintiff would deliver all the remainder he had, and complained of the quality of the iron delivered, held, in an action to recover at the agreed price for the iron delivered, that the defendant was not warranted in refusing to pay for same and at the same time requesting further deliveries, or on the ground plaintiff had not delivered the remainder of the iron because the contract did not call for any specific quantity.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 324*\u2014when presumed, that payment became due as of date of delivery of material. Where a contract for the purchase and delivery of a quantity of material contains no provision as to the time of payment, it will be presumed, in an action to recover the purchase price, that the payment became due as of the date of the delivery of the material.\nSamuels & Samuels, for plaintiff in error.\nScott, Bancroft, Martin & Stephens, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0192-01",
  "first_page_order": 218,
  "last_page_order": 219
}