{
  "id": 2916518,
  "name": "Olney J. Dean & Company, Appellee, v. William Mavor Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Olney J. Dean & Co. v. William Mavor Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-05",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,748",
  "first_page": "498",
  "last_page": "499",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 498"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 1982,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.557,
    "sha256": "7065403428450a21e4d2737d0fb807b9d7e37236a9e54a6c9ce706a2bd630640",
    "simhash": "1:40555c87708f5af8",
    "word_count": 309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Olney J. Dean & Company, Appellee, v. William Mavor Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Interest, \u00a7 24*\u2014what is vexatious withholding of payment. The withholding by a contractor of payment of a subcontractor\u2019s claim was vexatious where no reason appeared for disputing the claim.\n4. Interest, \u00a7 8*\u2014when recoverable. Interest is recoverable upon a claim sued for, for money due under a contract in writing, under section 2, ch. 74, Rev. St. (J. & A. 6691).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lucius & Lucius, for appellant.",
      "Thompson, Clark & Boat, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Olney J. Dean & Company, Appellee, v. William Mavor Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,748. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Payment, \u00a734 \u2014when receipt does not operate as complete, settlement. The acceptance hy a building contractor without question of a subcontractor\u2019s receipt in settlement of a certain account, stating that the receipt did not cover certain items for extra material, constituted an acquiescence hy the contractor in such statement that those items remained unsettled.\n2. Building and construction contracts, \u00a7 103*\u2014when material shown to be subcontractor\u2019s property. Evidence held to show that certain steel rods which were worked into a building by, plaintiff as subcontractor were plaintiff\u2019s property, notwithstanding some of them were on the premises at the time defendant ordered them, in an action to recover their value.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago, the Hon. William N. Gbmmill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 5, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Olney J. Dean & Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against William Mavor Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover for work and material furnished by plaintiff as subcontractor to defendant as contractor on a certain building. From a judgment for plaintiff for $262.04, defendant appeals.\nLucius & Lucius, for appellant.\nThompson, Clark & Boat, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0498-01",
  "first_page_order": 526,
  "last_page_order": 527
}