{
  "id": 2945383,
  "name": "Samuel Kersten, Appellee, v. West Coast Roofing & Manufacturing Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kersten v. West Coast Roofing & Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,786",
  "first_page": "447",
  "last_page": "447",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 447"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1703,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.200523795503776e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4759814182216801
    },
    "sha256": "570d2ef30cdd56426a2e8583c0a379c78874f5c40cf5fe50df87c075cb4c4449",
    "simhash": "1:4b7f6904100b32d8",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel Kersten, Appellee, v. West Coast Roofing & Manufacturing Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blum & Blum:, for appellant.",
      "Samuels & Samuels, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel Kersten, Appellee, v. West Coast Roofing & Manufacturing Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,786.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 329 \u2014when evidence insufficient to show defects in hotter or workmanship. In an action to recover for labor and materials furnished in installing a boiler in defendant\u2019s building, evidence held to show that the inability of the boiler to meet defendant\u2019s requirements was not due to defects in the boiler or workmanship, as contended in defense, but to its size, and that such boiler was constructed according to specifications furnished by the defendant and that plaintiff did not guarantee such kind of boiler would meet defendant\u2019s requirements.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 251*\u2014what implied warranty exists as to specified kind of article. Where a contract calls for the delivery of a certain specified kind of manufactured article, there is no implied warranty of its fitness for any purpose other than it be the kind specified.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habby P. Dolan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 26, 1917.\nRehearing denied April 9, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Samuel Kersten, plaintiff, against the West Coast Roofing & Manufacturing Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover for labor and materials furnished in installing a certain boiler. From a judgment for plaintiff for $867.03, defendant appeals.\nBlum & Blum:, for appellant.\nSamuels & Samuels, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0447-01",
  "first_page_order": 473,
  "last_page_order": 473
}