{
  "id": 5084238,
  "name": "Peoria Grape Sugar Company v. H. D. Turney et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Turney",
  "decision_date": "1895-05-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "563",
  "last_page": "564",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 563"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. App. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5107783
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/52/0158-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 3021,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.38096894499963e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4422188320631821
    },
    "sha256": "7812810ac47a96f3e782f180580f89f1f85c68e2766ce84619a7050201b8955e",
    "simhash": "1:5f63a481c07b3be5",
    "word_count": 506
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peoria Grape Sugar Company v. H. D. Turney et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe written contract introduced in evidence bears date and appears to have been made February 1, 1894. The suit was for coal delivered in December, 1893, January and February, 1894.\nIt is manifest that only the February coal can have been delivered under the written contract.\nThe written contract in any event fixes the price of coal delivered in F ebruary only. Before a recovery could be had for coal delivered previous to the making of this contract, the price or value of such coal must be shown. It was therefore error to instruct the jury to find for the plaintiff according to bill rendered, unless the making o\u00ed such bill constituted in connection with the retention thereof, or some admission, implied or otherwise, of the defendant, an account stated.\nThere was no such evidence of an account stated as made the account presented, prima facie evidence of the correctness thereof.\nBetween business men accustomed to receive and accept or object to accounts with- promptness, the. reception and retention of an account, without objection within a reasonable time, may be treated as an admission- of its correctness. That is, such admission may be implied from a failure in such case to object within a reasonable time to the account. Wharton on Evidence, Sec. 1140; Green v. Smith, 52 Ill. App. 158.\nA refusal to pay or to settle in accordance with an account is a most plain objection to it. Appellant was asked by appellees to pay his account; it refused, unless, as a condition, the contract of February 1st was canceled.\nSuch refusal was as effective in preventing the raising of an implied presumption of the correctness of the account as if appellee had offered to pay the account if one thousand dollars was deducted therefrom, or the price of the coal therein mentioned reduced to fifty cents per ton.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moran, Kraus & Mayer, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Bunnells & JBurry, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peoria Grape Sugar Company v. H. D. Turney et al.\n1. Admissions\u2014By Failing to Act with Promptness.\u2014Between business men accustomed to receive and accept or object to statements of account with promptness, the reception and retention of an account without objection within a reasonable time, may be treated as an admission of its correctness.\n2. Presumptions\u2014Correctness of Account\u2014When They Do Not Arise.\u2014A refusal to settle in accordance with an account is most effective in preventing the raising of an implied presumption of its correctness.\nAssumpsit, for coal sold and delivered. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed May 16, 1895.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis was an action td recover for coal sold and delivered. The action was in the court below claimed and treated as being based upon a written contract introduced in evidence.\nMoran, Kraus & Mayer, attorneys for appellant.\nBunnells & JBurry, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0563-01",
  "first_page_order": 559,
  "last_page_order": 560
}