{
  "id": 2925828,
  "name": "Francisco Vittelle et al., trading as F. Vittelle & Sons, Appellees, v. Louis Caravetta, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vittelle v. Caravetta",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen No. 22,633",
  "first_page": "374",
  "last_page": "375",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 374"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 125,
    "char_count": 1416,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.606,
    "sha256": "5e344df4048d1e3662b3f29f9767b7c2aaa71af668d63e5dbdc938841c9777ad",
    "simhash": "1:1336509d7007885a",
    "word_count": 235
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Francisco Vittelle et al., trading as F. Vittelle & Sons, Appellees, v. Louis Caravetta, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. A. Sherwin, for appellant.",
      "Elbert C. Ferguson, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Francisco Vittelle et al., trading as F. Vittelle & Sons, Appellees, v. Louis Caravetta, Appellant.\nGen No. 22,633.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Chables A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Francisco Vittelle, Guisseppe Vittelle and Henry Vittelle, trading as F. Vittelle & Sons, plaintiffs, against Louis Caravetta, defendant, to recover for the value of certain goods alleged to have been sold by plaintiffs to defendant. From a judgment for plaintiffs for $963.03 and costs, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 126* \u2014 when delivery of hill of lading constitutes delivery of goods. Where a bill of lading by which goods are consigned to the shippers is indorsed by the shippers and sent to the buyer when shipment is made, there is a valid delivery of the goods.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 108* \u2014 what does not constitute cancellation of order for goods. In an action to recover for the purchase price of goods sold, held that an alleged cancellation of the ordejr, which was merely a request by the buyer for temporary delay of shipment, did not operate as a cancellation of the order for the goods.\nL. A. Sherwin, for appellant.\nElbert C. Ferguson, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0374-01",
  "first_page_order": 400,
  "last_page_order": 401
}