{
  "id": 5406192,
  "name": "American Metal Company, Appellee, v. U. S. Reduction Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "American Metal Co. v. U. S. Reduction Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,925",
  "first_page": "492",
  "last_page": "493",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 492"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2020,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "sha256": "9956e734ff64086109324e0072f6e6d8c6411ac1e337c1a9f98b32d2682e6515",
    "simhash": "1:7132d4433c07b289",
    "word_count": 322
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "American Metal Company, Appellee, v. U. S. Reduction Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Silber, Isaacs, Silber & Woley, for appellant.",
      "Felsenthal & Wilson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "American Metal Company, Appellee, v. U. S. Reduction Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,925.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. J. J. Cooke, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 9, 1917.\nRehearing denied May 22, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the American Metal Company, plaintiff, .against the U. S. Reduction Company, defendant, to recover for the breach by defendant of a contract for the purchase of 150 tons of antimonial lead. From a judgment for plaintiff for $807.67, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 114 \u2014when refusal to accept shipments constitutes breach of contract. Where defendant contracted to purchase of plaintiff certain \u201cNewark antimonial lead, running approximately from 15% to 18% antimony and not above 1% arsenic,\u201d and accepted a certain quantity shipped but refused to accept further shipments unless they were found to be absolutely free from copper, and defendant\u2019s witnesses testified no antimonial lead is produced \u201cabsolutely free of copper,\u201d and there was no evidence that the amount of copper supposed to be in the antimonial lead was sufficient to impair its value or render it unsuitable to defendant\u2019s purposes, held that defendant\u2019s refusal to accept shipments unless found to be absolutely free from copper constituted a breach of the contract for, which plaintiff would be entitled to recover.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 65*\u2014what is effect of provision in contract as to prohibition of given substance in ore. The expression in a contract of a prohibition against the presence of a given substance in ore sold would, under ordinary canons of construction, exclude any implied exclusion of any other substance.\nSilber, Isaacs, Silber & Woley, for appellant.\nFelsenthal & Wilson, for appellee.\ngee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0492-01",
  "first_page_order": 520,
  "last_page_order": 521
}