{
  "id": 2911682,
  "name": "Harris Automatic Press Company, Appellee, v. Cream of Wheat Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harris Automatic Press Co. v. Cream of Wheat Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,900",
  "first_page": "629",
  "last_page": "629",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 629"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1399,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "sha256": "144917c378b19aa5dff110d8fa46f1946a4e99ef7768b5f1b2c788d6583d699c",
    "simhash": "1:4a27c5456c2b9f98",
    "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": [
      "Harris Automatic Press Company, Appellee, v. Cream of Wheat Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Matchett\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Matchett"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown & G-uesmer, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.",
      "Thompson, Tyrrell & Chambers, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harris Automatic Press Company, Appellee, v. Cream of Wheat Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,900. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nSales, \u00a7 284 \u2014what is remedy of seller upon retention, of goods by buyer after termination of contract. Where a contract for the purchase of a printing press was terminated by the buyer in accordance with the terms of the contract but the press was used by him thereafter, his liability for such use, if any, would be upon a quantum meruit and not on the contract, which provided for the terms of its use only while' the contract was in force.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Sabath, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 12, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Harris Automatic Press Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Cream of Wheat Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover for the use of a printing press under the terms of a written contract. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nBrown & G-uesmer, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.\nThompson, Tyrrell & Chambers, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0629-01",
  "first_page_order": 657,
  "last_page_order": 657
}