{
  "id": 2916623,
  "name": "Moorman Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. Frank Wilson, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1918-02-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,497",
  "first_page": "104",
  "last_page": "105",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 104"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1971,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "sha256": "60f475b353f2cb40315b49ec8acbc942c4c5ddd7c76818fc510fa5b8f3e01bb0",
    "simhash": "1:cf4e5a46180b0158",
    "word_count": 334
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Moorman Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. Frank Wilson, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Niehaus\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Niehaus"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles E. Mulligan, for appellant.",
      "James H. Andrews, for appellee; Harvey J. Carson, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Moorman Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. Frank Wilson, Appellee.\nGen. No. 6,497. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the City Court of Kewanee; the Hon. H. Steblinb Pomebov, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 12, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Moorman Manufacturing Company, plaintiff, against Frank Wilson, defendant, to recover $42 as the price of 600 pounds of Moorman Hog Remedy sold to defendant by plaintiff\u2019s agent. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nThe action was commenced before a justice of the peace, where judgment was for the plaintiff. On appeal, defendant had judgment for costs on verdict of a jury.\nCharles E. Mulligan, for appellant.\nJames H. Andrews, for appellee; Harvey J. Carson, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 314 \u2014when no recovery may he had for article worthless for purpose intended. In an action to recover from the defendant the purchase price of a certain hog remedy sold him by plaintiff, plaintiff could not recover if the remedy was worthless for the purpose for which it was sold.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 328*\u2014what are questions for jury in action to recover purchase price of hog remedy.' In an action to recover the purchase price of a certain hog remedy sold by plaintiff to defendant, held that whether the remedy was fed by defendant to his hogs according to directions given him and whether it had the effect upon his hogs stated by him were questions for the jury.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 329*\u2014when shown that hog remedy did not have represented effect. Evidence held sufficient to warrant a finding that a certain hog remedy sold by plaintiff to defendant was sold upon certain representations as to its effect upon hogs and that it did not have such effect upon defendant\u2019s hogs.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0104-01",
  "first_page_order": 132,
  "last_page_order": 133
}