{
  "id": 5406309,
  "name": "John A. Donahue, trading as John A. Donahue & Company, Appellant, v. Wheeling Mold & Foundry Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Donahue v. Wheeling Mold & Foundry Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,856",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 301"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2414,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "sha256": "938cbd789183e491792ae0a1469adbba35eb19e56395919be8a7e680039dde49",
    "simhash": "1:c94fea07002e4899",
    "word_count": 403
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John A. Donahue, trading as John A. Donahue & Company, Appellant, v. Wheeling Mold & Foundry Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cameron & Matson, for appellant.",
      "Ninde, Potter & Rigby, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John A. Donahue, trading as John A. Donahue & Company, Appellant, v. Wheeling Mold & Foundry Company, Appellee.\nGen. No. 22,856.\n(Not to he reported in full,)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles N. Goo'dnow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nRehearing denied April 30, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John A. Donahue, trading as John A. Donahue & Company, plaintiff, against the Wheeling Mold & Foundry Company, defendant, to recover for breach of a contract for the sale of a road roller business. From a judgment for defendant for costs, plaintiff appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1101*\u2014what is effect of failure of appellee to file brief. In the absence of a brief by the appellee, the Appellate Court will, under its rules, accept as true the statement of the case as it appears in the brief of the appellant.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicaqo, \u00a7 10 \u2014what is form of action of the fourth class. In an action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court, the form of action is such as the evidence makes it.\n3. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13a*\u2014what does not constitute variance between statement of claim and evidence in action for breach of contract. In an action of the first class brought in the Municipal Court on a contract, where the plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim alleged a contract for the sale of a certain business, and asserted that he had performed his part of the contract and that the defendant had breached the undertaking, and it appeared on the trial that the plaintiff had not performed his undertaking in certain particulars, and plaintiff undertook by evidence to explain such nonperformance, and the trial court held that such evidence constituted a variance between the statement of claim and the proof and decided against plaintiff\u2019s claim, held that if nonperformance of some of the details of the undertaking was excusable or agreed upon between the parties, plaintiff was still entitled to recover whatever his damages might have been, and that the ruling against plaintiff on the ground of variance was error.\nCameron & Matson, for appellant.\nNinde, Potter & Rigby, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same tupie and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 329,
  "last_page_order": 330
}