{
  "id": 5820201,
  "name": "Gifford Wood Company, Appellant, v. Chicago Coated Board Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gifford Wood Co. v. Chicago Coated Board Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,245",
  "first_page": "259",
  "last_page": "260",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 259"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 214,
    "char_count": 3062,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "sha256": "9491f2655b72796879908c1eba71664474a9120031f2da2836a5557dbf91c08f",
    "simhash": "1:077dc9913a0d02f0",
    "word_count": 520
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gifford Wood Company, Appellant, v. Chicago Coated Board Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Hatchett\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 300 \u2014when seller not in default under contract to install shafting. One who contracts to sell and install shafting in the plant of another is not in default where the time limit in the contract is extended for a valuable consideration, and, after the expiration of the time then limited but before the expiration of the number of days the seller was delayed, due to no fault of its own, the purchaser takes possession of the premises, the contract providing that the seller should not be liable for any \u201closs, damage or delay\u201d caused by accidents or contingencies beyond its control.\n3.. Contbacts, \u00a7 300*\u2014when seller of shafting not liadle for damages for time plant is idle. Where a contract for the sale and installation of shafting provides that the shafting shall be procured by the seller from a certain manufacturer and that the contract shall be finished by a certain time, but the time for completion is extended before work is commenced and the seller learns that the manufacturer will be delayed in the furnishing of materials because of a breakdown in his plant before the time is extended and does not notify the purchaser until after the time is extended, he is not liable for damages for the days the plant is idle due to such delay, especially where the purchaser gets notice from the manufacturer within a day or two after the seller receives notice.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Hatchett"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ninian H. Welch and William J. Lacey, for appellant.",
      "Boss C. Ball, Clarence N. Booed and Oscar H. Olsen, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gifford Wood Company, Appellant, v. Chicago Coated Board Company, Appellee.\nGen. No. 23,245.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Contracts, \u00a7 387 \u2014when unavoidable delay in installation of shafting in plant is shown. In an action on a contract for the sale and installation of shafting in defendant\u2019s plant, evidence held sufficient to show that plaintiff was delayed eight days in completing the' work under the contract in not being able to get the specified goods from a certain manufacturer on account of an accident caused by the breaking down of the latter\u2019s plant, and that plaintiff was delayed three days by the loss for such period of a car of shafting shipped by the manufacturer, and that each of .such delays was beyond the control of plaintiff.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jambs C. Martin, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Gifford Wood Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Chicago Coated Board Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover for breach of a contract for the sale and installation of new shafting in defendant\u2019s plant. From a judgment in favor of defendant on his set-off, plaintiff appeals.\nNinian H. Welch and William J. Lacey, for appellant.\nBoss C. Ball, Clarence N. Booed and Oscar H. Olsen, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSec Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0259-01",
  "first_page_order": 285,
  "last_page_order": 286
}