{
  "id": 5402569,
  "name": "F. J. Riley Printing Company, Appellee, v. Bissell Laundry, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "F. J. Riley Printing Co. v. Bissell Laundry",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,874",
  "first_page": "409",
  "last_page": "410",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 409"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1992,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "sha256": "57d8fb709297078d67fe33dca533df407a2f7cf20ec604523e6732293b1b6d78",
    "simhash": "1:b8bde621708f03dc",
    "word_count": 335
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "F. J. Riley Printing Company, Appellee, v. Bissell Laundry, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dennis J. O\u2019Toole, for appellant.",
      "Lawton & Peterson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. J. Riley Printing Company, Appellee, v. Bissell Laundry, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,874.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1752*\u2014judgment affirmed for insufficiency of abstract. The abstract is the pleading of the parties in the Appellate Court, and if it fails to inform the court as to what the judgment was which the court is asked to reverse, such judgment will he assumed to be correct and will be affirmed.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 888 \u2014when abstract is insufficient. In a case where the abstract contained the recital: \u201cVerdict and motion for new trial. Order denying motion for new trial and judgment,\u201d held that such recital did not inform the court as to the character of either the verdict or judgment.\n3. Contracts, \u00a7 338*\u2014what is no defense to action to recover on advertising contract. In an action to recover for the amount due under a contract for advertising in a publication called \u201cThe Hamiltonian,\u201d where the defendant claimed that it thought it was contracting for such advertising with the Hamilton Club of Chicago, held that as the contract was in writing, and did not purport to be with such club, the defendant could not avoid payment by claiming that it executed the contract under the impression that the money was to be paid for the benefit of a party not named in the contract.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Courtney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 30, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by F. J. Riley Printing Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against the Bissell Laundry, a corporation, defendant, to recover on a contract for advertising. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nDennis J. O\u2019Toole, for appellant.\nLawton & Peterson, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0409-01",
  "first_page_order": 437,
  "last_page_order": 438
}