{
  "id": 858514,
  "name": "Wilbert I. Slemmons v. August Wahlfeld",
  "name_abbreviation": "Slemmons v. Wahlfeld",
  "decision_date": "1894-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "497",
  "last_page": "499",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 Ill. App. 497"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3662,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.483,
    "sha256": "730924e89e1d073f5506d26aa736e0f01af4d65315253388d5a1f16734ab6755",
    "simhash": "1:98056fdcf5dadef9",
    "word_count": 626
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:00.879097+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Wilbert I. Slemmons v. August Wahlfeld."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lacey\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a suit by appellee to recover the price of certain building material called \u201c mill work \u201d for the building a house for appellant or his wife, for whom he was acting as agent. The cause was tried by the court and a jury, and the latter found a verdict for appellee for $135, on which judgment was rendered.\nThis appeal is taken, and the main cause for reversal insisted on is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. The appellant\u2019s wife had a contract with S. P. Tefft & Son, for building a house on her lot in Peoria, according to certain specifications including material to be furnished by appellee, for $2,700.\nBefore the contract was completed the son died.\nJohn B. Lawrence was Tefft\u2019s agent for building the house, and after the death of young Tefft it became necessary to obtain the milling work in question, consisting of blinds, windows and doors, etc.\nThere was a bill of this milling building material furnished by appellee for the house of appellant\u2019s wife to the amount of $410, of which amount appellant paid $275, claiming to pay it on the Tefft contract, insisting that he had no contract with appellee and was not responsible for the bill.\nAppellant carried on the building as though it was his own, and to all outside appearances it belonged to him, but this we regard as immaterial as regards the questions in issue.\nThe insistance before the jury by appellee was that appellant made a direct contract with him to furnish the material and agreed to be responsible for it; that the contract was made through Lawrence, the foreman, as between appellant and appellee; that appellee refused to furnish the building material unless appellant would agree to be responsible for it, Tefft not being responsible.\nLawrence testified that appellant did make such an agreement through him and he was corroborated by appellee and L. IT. Rose. The appellant denied such an agreement. The evidence was conflicting and was a question to be determined by the jury, and unless clearly against the weight of the evidence the verdict should stand, in accordance with the rules of law well understood in this State.\nWe have examined the evidence carefully and are unable to say that the jury were not fully authorized in rendering the verdict on the evidence.\nWe see no error committed by the court in allowing the evidence complained of. There was abundant evidence on which to base appellee\u2019s instructions Ros. 1 and 2, in submitting the case to the jury on the evidence of the contractor we have already indicated. And there was some evidence of a ratification of a contract of Lawrence with appellee to the effect that appellant would pay for the material and hence the instruction on that part as is insisted was not erroneous.\nWe see no serious error in the other instructions and use of the word plaintiff in one instruction instead of defendant as was intended, was clearly a clerical error and could not mislead the jury.\nSeeing no error in the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lacey"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winslow Evans, attorney for appellant.",
      "McCulloch & McCulloch, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wilbert I. Slemmons v. August Wahlfeld.\n1. Verdict\u2014Conflict of Evidence.\u2014Where the evidence is conflicting, and is a question to be determined by the jury, unless clearly against the weight of the evidence, the verdict ought to stand.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County, the Hon. Thomas M. Shaw, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the December term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed May 22, 1894.\nThe opinion states the case.\nWinslow Evans, attorney for appellant.\nMcCulloch & McCulloch, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0497-01",
  "first_page_order": 493,
  "last_page_order": 495
}