{
  "id": 5405829,
  "name": "Grossfeld & Roe Company, Appellee, v. William Junker Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grossfeld & Roe Co. v. William Junker Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,796",
  "first_page": "336",
  "last_page": "337",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 336"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 2149,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "sha256": "6c06d57cb1066628bf83c2a981d26ed652da31c5b3d371ec89065a3190e1a4a8",
    "simhash": "1:125a6babb48d9cdd",
    "word_count": 353
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Grossfeld & Roe Company, Appellee, v. William Junker Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Brand, for appellant.",
      "Blum, Wolfsohn & Blum, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Grossfeld & Roe Company, Appellee, v. William Junker Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,796.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Perry L. Persons, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nRehearing denied April 30, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Grossfeld & Roe Company, plaintiff, against William Junker Company, defendant, to recover upon a contract for the purchase by defendant of two hundred barrels of sugar, estimated at eighty thousand pounds, at the price of $5.65 per hundred pounds. From a judgment for plaintiff for $240, defendant appeals.\nWilliam R. Brand, for appellant.\nBlum, Wolfsohn & Blum, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 154*\u2014what constitutes admission, of existence of contract. Testimony of a corporation defendant\u2019s president identifying his letter to plaintiff referring to \u201cour contract of February 8, 1915\u201d and annulling \u201cour contract with you,\u201d held to he an admission of the contract, in an action to recover thereunder in which defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits denied the making of the contract.\n2. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014what defenses defendant filing affidavit of merits is confined to. 1 A defendant in the Municipal Court is confined by the rules of that court to the defenses made in his affidavit of merits.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 376*\u2014what is measure of damages for breach of com-\u25a0tract for purchase of goods. In an action to recover for breach of a contract for the purchase of certain goods, the difference between the contract price and the market price on resale after such breach, held to he the measure of damages.\n4. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014when affidavit of defense is insufficient. An affidavit of defense filed in an action in the Municipal Court, stating merely that the defendant did not know plaintiff to he a corporation, held not to he sufficient to put plaintiff to proof of its incorporation.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0336-01",
  "first_page_order": 364,
  "last_page_order": 365
}