{
  "id": 2925706,
  "name": "Architectural Tile Company, Appellee, v. Israel S. Spiro, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Architectural Tile Co. v. Spiro",
  "decision_date": "1917-07-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,064",
  "first_page": "167",
  "last_page": "168",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 167"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2537,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.59,
    "sha256": "6f224ad907a08aa7e29fc11d2cd25029507f59359c4c55ca31a92a2c24de65c6",
    "simhash": "1:2e4b5c77142d64d4",
    "word_count": 430
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Architectural Tile Company, Appellee, v. Israel S. Spiro, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 310 \u2014 what is condition precedent to right to recover purchase price of goods sold by description. Where a contract is executory and the seller agrees to sell an article by a particular description, it is a condition to his right to recover the price that the thing which is delivered shall answer such description, and in a suit for the price brought by the seller, the defendant may give in evidence the diminution in value on account of the goods not answering the description, or, if they he in fact worthless, may defeat the action.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harold J. Finder, for appellant.",
      "W. J. Leseman, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Architectural Tile Company, Appellee, v. Israel S. Spiro, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,064.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014 when statement of claim in action to recover for goods sold and delivered is insufficient. A statement of claim, in an action to recover for goods sold and delivered, which contains a number of items, but no description whatever as to the kind and character of the goods, the items charged being \u201cto invoice,\u201d is insufficient, and a motion for a more specific statement of claim is improperly denied.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 323* \u2014 when portion of affidavit of merits in action to recover for goods sold is improperly stricken from files. In an action to recover for goods sold and delivered, held that the portion of an affidavit of merits alleging that there were errors in the account stated by the plaintiff and that it included the price of certain tile which defendant claimed was to be of a specific kind, but after the tile was delivered under the contract and set up it developed that it was not of the kind and character as specified in the contract, and that it was impossible to discover this from inspection before setting,' was improperly stricken from the files.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Architectural Tile Company, a. corporation, plaintiff, against Israel S. Spiro, defendant, to recover for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiff for $240.79, defendant appeals,\nHarold J. Finder, for appellant.\nW. J. Leseman, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Bisrest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section titimber."
  },
  "file_name": "0167-01",
  "first_page_order": 193,
  "last_page_order": 194
}