{
  "id": 3018183,
  "name": "The G. H. Hammond Company, Appellee, v. George E. Ford, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "G. H. Hammond Co. v. Ford",
  "decision_date": "1918-06-19",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,576",
  "first_page": "490",
  "last_page": "492",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 490"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 310,
    "char_count": 5590,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "sha256": "90e18f08a7d9524ce142aabb49b4296d7373eb2aefee49e7a3da5627be0f5a6b",
    "simhash": "1:8b182c94dc0590f0",
    "word_count": 949
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The G. H. Hammond Company, Appellee, v. George E. Ford, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thomson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 538* \u2014 when error in refusing to instruct jury to find fof defendant is not reviewahle. Denial of a motion to instruct the jury to find for defendant at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence cannot be urged as error, where the .motion was not renewed at the close of all the evidence.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 538* \u2014 when refusal to direct verdict for defendant is reviewahle. The ruling of the trial court, made after defendant had rested, denying a motion, made at the close of plaintiff\u2019s case, to instruct the jury to find the issues for the defendant as to one of the items of plaintiff\u2019s claim, is properly reviewahle where the evidence in rebuttal following the motion had nothing to do with such item.\n4. Warehousemen, \u00a7 23* \u2014 when waiver of full compliance with contract for delivery of specified amount of goods for storage is shown. In an action to recover for the breach of a contract which called for the delivery by defendant of a certain quantity of goods for storage, evidence that defendant stated to plaintiff\u2019s agent that he feared that he would not be able to deliver such quantity, but would go out and get sufficient goods to fulfil the contract if plaintiff insisted, whereupon the agent told him that plaintiff would not be technical but that defendant should do the best he could, held to show a waiver by plaintiff of full compliance with the provision requiring defendant to deliver the specified amount of goods for storage.\n5. Principal and agent, \u00a7 8* \u2014 when agent shown to have authority to waive full compliance with storage contract. In an action to recover for the breach of a contract requiring defendant to deliver to plaintiff for storage a certain number of barrels of apples, the manager of plaintiff\u2019s storage warehouses, who negotiated dealings with defendant which resulted in the contract, had charge of soliciting plaintiff\u2019s storage business and of the storage plant and was authorized to make storage contracts binding, on plaintiff, held to have authority to waive full compliance with the provision as to the number of barrels which should be delivered.\n6. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1424* \u2014 when errors as to set-off are harmless. Where a defendant filing a statement of set-off fails to make out a case on his set-off and, under the evidence, is not entitled to have any allowance upon his claim, errors having to do with his claim are harmless.\n7. Warehousemen \u2014 what is measure of damages for injury to stored goods. Where, in an action on a contract for the storage of goods, defendant files a claim of set-off for damages to goods stored with plaintiff, his measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value if they had been withdrawn from storage in good condition at seasonable times and the amount which he was able to obtain for them in their damaged state.\n8. Warehousemen, \u00a7 27 \u2014 when damages for injury to stored goods not shown. In am action to recover under a contract for the storage of goods, wherein defendant filed a claim of set-off for damages to goods stored with plaintiff, evidence held insufficient to show the damages to the goods in question, in that it failed to show of what the goods consisted, their fair market value or that after they were damaged defendant sold them for their market value in- their then condition.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thomson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ditchburne & Westberg, for appellant.",
      "Henry Veeder, Robert C. McManus and Frank L. Horton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The G. H. Hammond Company, Appellee, v. George E. Ford, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,576.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 14 \u2014 what constitutes prima facie case in action of first class for services rendered under contract, Where, in an action of the first class in the Municipal Court of Chicago to recover for services rendered under a contract and for a breach of the contract, plaintiff puts defendant on the stand and through him introduces evidence that an itemized account of the charges for such services, which was shown the witness, had been checked up by defendant\u2019s employees and that it correctly stated the amount that defendant\u2019s books showed to be due after being so checked, a prima facie case is made out as to the charges for services and a motion to instruct the jury to find for defendant is properly overruled, even though no evidence is introduced by plaintiff, in presenting his case, regarding the issues raised by defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits as to plaintiff\u2019s alleged failure to do the various things called for on its part under the contract.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. F*rt, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 19, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction of the first class in the Municipal Court of Chicago by The G. H. Hammond Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against George E. Ford, defendant, on a contract. There was a verdict for plaintiff for $1,487.98. Plaintiff, on the court\u2019s suggestion, filed a remittitur for $391.50 and judgment was entered in its favor for $1,096.48, from which defendant appeals, plaintiff assigning cross errors as to matters affecting a claim for set-off filed by defendant.\nDitchburne & Westberg, for appellant.\nHenry Veeder, Robert C. McManus and Frank L. Horton, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same' topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0490-01",
  "first_page_order": 544,
  "last_page_order": 546
}