{
  "id": 3017593,
  "name": "The Ozonized Ox Marrow Company, Appellant, v. M. L. Barrett & Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ozonized Ox Marrow Co. v. M. L. Barrett & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-06-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,616",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "422",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 421"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2064,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "sha256": "c2c074739b20678b73a3f55e8d3fb0a7aa01b6547b986c5b202b852484609665",
    "simhash": "1:6094cb43ba080aac",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Ozonized Ox Marrow Company, Appellant, v. M. L. Barrett & Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Olaf A. Olson, for appellant; Bull, Lytton & Olson, of counsel.",
      "Musgrave, Oppenheim & Lee, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Ozonized Ox Marrow Company, Appellant, v. M. L. Barrett & Company, Appellee.\nGen. No. 23,616.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 141 \u2014 necessity that goods conform to representation as well as to sample. Where goods are sold by sample and representation, the fact that they conform to the sample submitted is not sufficient as they must be in accordance with the representation as well.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 141* \u2014 when shown that commodity was not \u201coil of orange\u2019\u2019 as represented. Evidence held to sustain a finding that a commodity was purchased by sample on representation that it was \u201coil of orange,\u201d but that, although it may have conformed to the sample, it was not \u201coil of orange\u201d as represented.\n3. Customs and usages, \u00a7 26* \u2014 when evidence of custom as to \u25a0meaning of term \u201coil of orange\u201d is not inadmissible. Evidence of a custom in the chemical industry that the term \u201coil of orange\u201d refers only to a commodity conforming to the formula of the United States Pharmacopreia is not inadmissible on the ground that the vendor, not being in the drug or chemical business, could not he charged with knowledge of the custom, if it existed, where the evidence in behalf of the vendee showed that the vendor agreed to deliver \u201coil of orange\u201d in conformity with such formula.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Dennis W. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 14, 1918.\nRehearing denied June 22, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by The Ozonized Ox Marrow Company, plaintiff, against M. L. Barrett & Company, defendant, to recover the value of a quantity of \u201cwashed oil of orange\u201d sold and delivered to defendant. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nOlaf A. Olson, for appellant; Bull, Lytton & Olson, of counsel.\nMusgrave, Oppenheim & Lee, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 475,
  "last_page_order": 476
}
