{
  "id": 2914528,
  "name": "Lozier Motor Company, Appellee, v. Luther V. Rice, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lozier Motor Co. v. Rice",
  "decision_date": "1918-01-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,047",
  "first_page": "425",
  "last_page": "425",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 425"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 140,
    "char_count": 1424,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4379504364926295
    },
    "sha256": "1e37b8f4e1b27b50a30b87122f893b615ea68946df56d796d5fe20647cda2c61",
    "simhash": "1:ab0452c7dc2a4251",
    "word_count": 228
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lozier Motor Company, Appellee, v. Luther V. Rice, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. A. Nowak, for appellant.",
      "Fred and Aleck L. Bernstein, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lozier Motor Company, Appellee, v. Luther V. Rice, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,047. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nPbincipax, and agent, \u00a7 187 \u2014when sale Ijy agent deemed ratified. One who, after knowledge of the facts attending the sale and delivery of its property by its agent, fails to disaffirm promptly the contract, and by its conduct induces the other party to suppose the contract is recognized, will be held to have ratified or acquiesced in the sale and cannot thereafter recover possession of the property by replevin, whether or not the agent exceeded his authority.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the HonJ-JoHN Stelk, Judge, presiding. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed January 31, 1918.\nRehearing denied February 11, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of replevin by Lozier Motor Company, a Michigan corporation, plaintiff, against Luther V. Bice, defendant, to recover an automobile sold defendant by an alleged agent of plaintiff. From a finding and judgment by the court for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nC. A. Nowak, for appellant.\nFred and Aleck L. Bernstein, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0425-01",
  "first_page_order": 453,
  "last_page_order": 453
}