{
  "id": 2931319,
  "name": "Model Packing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Felix Hanzl and John Hanzl, trading as Hanzl Brothers Company, Plaintiffs in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Model Packing Co. v. Hanzl",
  "decision_date": "1917-06-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,214",
  "first_page": "71",
  "last_page": "71",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 71"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1721,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "sha256": "ad356d69406c15e8ae3e3d0a3d0916bef29d16d569874d31605f37078a840073",
    "simhash": "1:49b6c128408f72fd",
    "word_count": 287
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Model Packing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Felix Hanzl and John Hanzl, trading as Hanzl Brothers Company, Plaintiffs in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph Z. Klenha and Joseph J. Kroupa, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Charles Daniels and Sumner C. Palmer, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Model Packing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Felix Hanzl and John Hanzl, trading as Hanzl Brothers Company, Plaintiffs in Error.\nGen. No. 22,214.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 341 \u2014 when evidence supports verdict in action for breach of contract. In an action by the seller to recover damages for a breach of contract of sale, evidence held to support a verdict for plaintiff.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 341* \u2014 what is sufficient proof of readiness of seller to deliver goods. In an action by the vendor of goods to recover damages for breach of contract, the readiness, ability and willingness of the vendor to deliver the goods is sufficiently shown where plaintiff avers in his statement of claim that he was compelled to sell it at the best market price obtainable by reason of defendant's\u2019 breach of contract and defendants admit in their affidavit of merits that the goods were sold as alleged in the plaintiff\u2019s statement.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 27, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Model Packing Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Felix Hanzl and John Hanzl, trading as Hanzl Brothers Company, defendants, to recover damages for a breach of contract. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $300, defendants prosecute this writ of error.\nJoseph Z. Klenha and Joseph J. Kroupa, for plaintiffs in error.\nCharles Daniels and Sumner C. Palmer, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yds. XI to XY, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0071-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 97
}