{
  "id": 5402421,
  "name": "Butchers' Advocate Company, Appellee, v. Autovacuum Refrigerating Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Butchers' Advocate Co. v. Autovacuum Refrigerating Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,778",
  "first_page": "540",
  "last_page": "541",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 540"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 2903,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "sha256": "e55d7c70182252924d3388c30813f02183a2452742da4647c4a06fe8b7941bf1",
    "simhash": "1:724e6ab6188b2ccc",
    "word_count": 460
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Butchers\u2019 Advocate Company, Appellee, v. Autovacuum Refrigerating Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Maximilian J. St. George, for appellant.",
      "Elbert C. Ferguson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Butchers\u2019 Advocate Company, Appellee, v. Autovacuum Refrigerating Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,778.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Arnold Heap, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and judgment here.\nOpinion filed May 21, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Butchers\u2019 Advocate Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against the Autovacuum Refrigerating Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover under a contract for advertising. From a judgment for plaintiff for eighty-four dollars, defendant appeals.\nThe contract sued on provided:\n\u2018 \u2018 Chicago, Dec. 21, 1914.\n\u2018 \u2018 The undersigned hereby authorize the Publisher of The Butchers\u2019 Advocate to insert our advertisement to occupy 5 inches every other week in the Butchers\u2019 Advocate, for three months and thereafter until the publisher has order to discontinue the advertisement for which we agree to pay $6.00 (six dollars) per insertion.\nAutovacuum; Refrigerating Company\nPer W. J. Kelly.\u201d\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 138 \u2014when notice to produce original letter is unnecessary as basis for secondary. Copies of certain letters shown to have been regularly mailed by defendant to plaintiff, held admissible in evidence, notwithstanding no notice was given plaintiff of defendant\u2019s intention to introduce secondary evidence of the contents of such letters or demand made upon plaintiff to produce same in court, it appearing that the letters were not in plaintiff\u2019s possession at the time of trial.\n2. Evidence, \u00a7 39*\u2014when presumed that letters were received. A showing that certain letters had been regularly mailed by defendant to plaintiff, held to give rise to a presumption that they had been received.\n3. Contracts, \u00a7 193*\u2014when letters subsequently written are not part of contract. Where, after entering into a certain contract with plaintiff for certain advertising, defendant wrote several letters to plaintiff to the effect that it was not ready to or had decided not to advertise, such letters held not part of the contract and not to affect plaintiff\u2019s right of action under the contract.\n4. Contracts, \u00a7 384*\u2014when notice of intention not to be bound by contract beyond time limited is shown. Evidence held sufficient to show that plaintiff had notice that defendant did not intend to be bound by the contract of advertising sued on beyond the period fixed therein.\nJanuary 11, 1915, defendant claimed to have mailed plaintiff a certain letter stating it was not ready to deliver certain cuts for the advertisement, and February 3, 1915, a letter that it had decided not to do any advertising just then.\nMaximilian J. St. George, for appellant.\nElbert C. Ferguson, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic mid section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0540-01",
  "first_page_order": 568,
  "last_page_order": 569
}