{
  "id": 2915161,
  "name": "W. B. Louer, trading as W. B. Louer Company, Appellee, v. Thomas M. White and Thomas L. Russell, copartners, trading as Thomas M. White Company, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Louer v. White",
  "decision_date": "1918-01-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,494",
  "first_page": "323",
  "last_page": "324",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 323"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2209,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "sha256": "34bfbe85a75894b67f4de52a7ef174f1c3b3932e83b2e208e73c42fa0e8ee7bd",
    "simhash": "1:24328b46b18ca37c",
    "word_count": 372
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. B. Louer, trading as W. B. Louer Company, Appellee, v. Thomas M. White and Thomas L. Russell, copartners, trading as Thomas M. White Company, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 146 \u2014when machine deemed to work to satisfaction of purchaser. Where a machine is furnished to work to the satisfaction of the purchaser of it, and such work is a matter of common experience, such as ordinary mechanical work, what, in reason ought to satisfy the contracting party in law will he held to satisfy him.\n'3. Sales, \u00a7 148*\u2014necessity of early notice of dissatisfaction with machine. Where a machine is to he satisfactory to the purchaser of it, notice of dissatisfaction or of failure of the machine must he given to the seller at the earliest practicable moment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. M. Schall, for appellants.",
      "Webster & Sherrard and Julius Stern, for appellee; Julius Stern, Daniel Webster and Arthur A. Sherrard, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. B. Louer, trading as W. B. Louer Company, Appellee, v. Thomas M. White and Thomas L. Russell, copartners, trading as Thomas M. White Company, Appellants.\nGen. No. 23,494. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 153 \u2014what constitutes acceptance of machine sent on trial. .Where a written contract for the purchase of an excavator machine provided that the machine was \u201cto work in clay excavating satisfactory to the\u201d purchaser, and that he should pay a certain amount when the machine was accepted and the balance in 30 days, the payment by the purchaser of the amount named after he had used the machine for 10 days constituted an acceptance of it according to the terms of the contract.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 28, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by W. B. Loner, trading as W. B. Loner Company, plaintiff, against Thomas M. White and Thomas L. Bussell, copartners, trading as Thomas M. White Company, defendants, to recover the balance of the purchase price of an excavator. From a judgment for plaintiff for $896.50, defendants appeal.\nS. M. Schall, for appellants.\nWebster & Sherrard and Julius Stern, for appellee; Julius Stern, Daniel Webster and Arthur A. Sherrard, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, 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 number."
  },
  "file_name": "0323-01",
  "first_page_order": 351,
  "last_page_order": 352
}