{
  "id": 2921791,
  "name": "Henry F. Wardwell, Appellee, v. Hocking Valley Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wardwell v. Hocking Valley Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-12-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,295",
  "first_page": "315",
  "last_page": "316",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 315"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2707,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "sha256": "9eaa7abc3b2d42d7ce9b8290ce6027fa684a30fd88bd53fba0bf90b0eabfba95",
    "simhash": "1:1b8a7da90039f1bd",
    "word_count": 471
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry F. Wardwell, Appellee, v. Hocking Valley Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Calhoun, Lyford & Sheean, for appellant; Edward W. Rawlins, of counsel.",
      "H. G. Colson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry F. Wardwell, Appellee, v. Hocking Valley Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,295.\n(Not to be reported in fuli.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Merritt W. Pinckney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 3, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Henry F. Wardwell, plaintiff, against Hocking Valley Railway Company, defendant, to recover damages for a breach of contract for the sale of goods. From a judgment for plaintiff for $14,250, defendant appeals.\nCalhoun, Lyford & Sheean, for appellant; Edward W. Rawlins, of counsel.\nH. G. Colson, for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 373 \u2014when evidence shows breach of contract to deliver cars within reasonable time. In an action to recover damages for a breach of contract for the sale of cars, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a finding that the contract called for delivery in a reasonable time, that such delivery was not made and that plaintiff was entitled to recover.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 376*\u2014what is measure of damages for breach of contract to deliver property. The measure of damages \u00f3n a breach of contract to deliver property is the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time and place of delivery.\n\u20223. Sales, \u00a7 380*\u2014how measure of damages for breach of contract to sell goods may not be established. In an action to recover damages for a breach of contract for the sale of goods, the measure. of damages is not to be established by proof of the price fixed in an unconsummated agreement by plaintiff for the resale of the goods to another.\n4. Sales, \u00a7 386*-r~when finding as to market value of goods will not be disturbed. In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract for the sale of goods, a finding as to the market value of such goods which is well within the limits of the testimony in regard to their market value will not be disturbed on appeal.\n5. Trial, \u00a7 300*\u2014when propositions of law are insufficient. Propositions of law submitted to the court should not assume the existence of facts in dispute.\n6. Trial, \u00a7 297*\u2014when proposition of law is properly refused. A proposition of law is properly refused where the evidence fails to establish 'the facts which it assumes and upon which it is predicated.\n7. Trial, \u00a7 292*\u2014when proposition of law properly refused as inapplicable to facts. A proposition of law is properly refused when it ignores part of the evidence and when it is not applicable to the facts as found by the court.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0315-01",
  "first_page_order": 339,
  "last_page_order": 340
}