{
  "id": 2924738,
  "name": "Northern Trust Company, Trustee, Appellee, v. Sidney J. Knowles, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Northern Trust Co. v. Knowles",
  "decision_date": "1917-11-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,126",
  "first_page": "258",
  "last_page": "260",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 258"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 3905,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "sha256": "591d6080ca62745bc78f95e47b0489e422a115677cbd72a9fb6e4c6669affe9c",
    "simhash": "1:9ba6a3a1cc294348",
    "word_count": 657
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Northern Trust Company, Trustee, Appellee, v. Sidney J. Knowles, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nTaylor, J., took no part in the decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roscoe L. Roberts and Roberts & Swain, for appellant.",
      "William S. Miller and Frederick H. Bengel, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Northern Trust Company, Trustee, Appellee, v. Sidney J. Knowles, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,126.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 30, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction on contract by the Northern Trust Company, as trustee of the estate of Joseph W. Wassail, deceased, plaintiff, against Sidney J. Knowles, defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $1,022.67, defendant appeals.\nRoscoe L. Roberts and Roberts & Swain, for appellant.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 62 \u2014when contract for sale of business of dentist construed as providing for payment of percentage of accounts of purchaser collected after expiration of period. Where a contract for the sale of the good-will, fixtures, leasehold, etc., pertaining to the professional practice of a deceased dentist provides that the purchaser will pay \u201cfrom time to time as same shall be received, one-quarter of the total receipts received by him from his professional practice for a period beginning on the 4th day of October, 1910, and ending on the 4th day of October, 1914,\u201d the amount payable by the purchaser is not limited to one-quarter of the receipts collected between the dates named but also includes collections made after the last-named date for work done between those dates, especially where such construction was placed upon the same provision in a previous contract between the same parties for a lease of the office, etc., to th\u00e9 purchaser.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1258*\u2014when defendant cannot claim, error in direction of verdict for defendant. In an action on a contract of sale to recover one-quarter of the amount collected by defendant in practicing his profession, a verdict directed for plaintiff for the amount which defendant testified he had collected, less the maximum amount for which defendant claimed he was entitled to credit, will not be set aside on the groumjl that the evidence was insufficient to establish the specific amount to which plaintiff was entitled.\n3. Accord and satisfaction, \u00a7 4*\u2014when disputed account 'is satisfied by retention of check. If a check is offered in payment of a disputed account, the creditor must either reject it or accept it on the proffered terms, and the demand is satisfied if he accepts, even though the creditor protests at the time that it is not all that is due, or that he does not accept it in full satisfaction of his claim.\n4. Accord and satisfaction, \u00a7 4*\u2014what does not constitute. Where a contract between the seller and the purchaser of a dentist\u2019s practice provides that the latter shall pay for a certain period, one-quarter of the total receipts from the practice from time to time as the same shall be received, the fact that the purchaser -in making monthly remittances states that the check is in full for the month mentioned, and in his letter inclosing a check, covering the last two months for which the contract ran, states that the check is for those months, \u201cthe balance due from me to you,\u201d and that thereafter the seller executes and delivers to the purchaser a bill of sale in accordance with the contract, wherein it acknowledges the receipt of the consideration provided for in the contract, does not constitute an accord and satisfaction, where in the letter inclosing the bill of sale the seller states that in a day or two its attorney will bring to test its right to share in collections made by the purchaser after the expiration of the contract and collections which he may thereafter make.\nWilliam S. Miller and Frederick H. Bengel, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0258-01",
  "first_page_order": 282,
  "last_page_order": 284
}