{
  "id": 2948246,
  "name": "Bickett Coal & Coke Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John W. Keogh & Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bickett Coal & Coke Co. v. John W. Keogh & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,595",
  "first_page": "527",
  "last_page": "528",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 527"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3596,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "sha256": "991afb9426b5fe6c195003aceb5a95d13fce42e3c4a0ab2558e078be250b7c93",
    "simhash": "1:e52ccea160db33ca",
    "word_count": 612
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bickett Coal & Coke Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John W. Keogh & Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Taylor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Taylor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry J. and Charles Aaron, for plaintiff in error; Douglas C. Gregg, of counsel.",
      "Alden, Latham & Young, for defendant in error; T. A. Sheehan, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bickett Coal & Coke Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John W. Keogh & Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 21,595.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Raitekty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 28, 1917.\nRehearing denied April 12, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Bickett Coal & Coke Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against John W. Keogh & Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover a balance of $260.22 as part of the selling price of ten carloads of coal shipped to defendant. From a judgment for defendant on its set-off for $702.15, plaintiff brings error.\nPlaintiff claimed for coal furnished at defendant\u2019s request and upon an account stated, which defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits denied, and said affidavit stated also that defendant objected to the quality of the coal delivered ; that it refused to pay therefor and requested its removal, and that it was not the kind ordered, but of an inferior quality. Defendant\u2019s set-off was for money paid for coal and freight, which defendant stated it had to pay before it could get the coal, and defendant stated further it paid immediately thereon to the plaintiff the purchase price of the coal, not then knowing or having means of finding out that it was of an inferior grade and not as ordered and unfit for use; that immediately, upon finding this out, it notified plaintiff it would not accept the coal and requested its removal, and that the amount due defendant from plaintiff for such coal and freight and for unloading of cars was $985.50. Plaintiff\u2019s affidavit of merits alleged such freight charges were part o.f the purchase price of the coal and that all of the coal was of the quality represented at time the order was taken. Five cars of the coal were shipped to defendant\u2019s factory at Soldier\u2019s Grove, Wisconsin, and five cars to its factory at East Dubuque, Illinois.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 398 \u2014when affidavit of merits sufficient in action for balance of purchase price of coal. Defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits held to set forth sufficient facts to apprise plaintiff that defendant would undertake to show that the coal delivered was not of the grade or quality ordered, in an action to recover the balance of purchase price of the coal.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 398*\u2014when statement of set-off sufficient in action for purchase price of coal. In an action to recover the balance of the purchase price of coal, defendant\u2019s statement of claim of set-off held to set up a breach of warranty and damages arising therefrom and to sufficiently inform plaintiff of the exact nature of such claim.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 401*\u2014when evidence sufficient to show breach of warranty. The evidence held to support a finding that plaintiff sold the coal in question with a warranty and that it broke such warranty.\n4. Sales, \u00a7 238*\u2014what constitutes warranty of coal. Where plaintiff\u2019s agent, in obtaining an order from defendant for the purchase by defendant of coal, led the defendant to' believe by promises he made to defendant that the quality of the coal would be as good as a certain specified kind and to rely upon such promises, held that there was a warranty of the quality of the coal.\nHenry J. and Charles Aaron, for plaintiff in error; Douglas C. Gregg, of counsel.\nAlden, Latham & Young, for defendant in error; T. A. Sheehan, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0527-01",
  "first_page_order": 553,
  "last_page_order": 554
}