{
  "id": 5153734,
  "name": "Missouri Malleable Iron Works v. Julius F. Rivers Architectural Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Missouri Malleable Iron Works v. Julius F. Rivers Architectural Co.",
  "decision_date": "1895-07-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "545",
  "last_page": "548",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 545"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 6377,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "sha256": "2f32d077cc1fc25ba300943d3bf952379cf36a327d064dd12c6d7884dc69fc09",
    "simhash": "1:0ba2c01018a22234",
    "word_count": 1050
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:36.719815+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Missouri Malleable Iron Works v. Julius F. Rivers Architectural Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Green\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe evidence in this case shows that the written proposition mentioned in the statement of the case was made to appellant by the appellee and was accepted by the former, and became the contract under which the work was done by appellee. He denied the making and acceptance of this contract, but the preponderance of the evidence and the special findings of the jury contradict him. It is insisted on behalf of appellee that appellant rescinded the contract by wrongfully discharging him before the completion of the work, and that there was such a change of plans upon which said proposition was based that it amounted to an abandonment of the contract and entitled appellee to recover what his services were reasonably worth. His acts indicate he did not claim the plans were so changed as to increase his work, or \u25a0 change the contract. He gave no notice of such claim, or that he was operating outside the contract, and asked for and received \u00a7500 in two installments, as one-third of the price he was to receive, which, by the contract, was to be \u00a71,500. He was discharged before the completion of the plant, for the reason he failed to furnish the necessary details and specifications for the proper completion of the buildings, and had failed to give assistance in superintending the erection of the same, necessitating the hiring of a superintendent to perform the duties he had contracted to perform; and we think the evidence tends strongly to establish his delinquency in all these respects. The damages assessed, in our judgment, were excessive, in view of all the evidence. If he had completed his entire contract he was entitled to $1,500. He had received $500 of this sum, leaving but $1,000 then due him, yet the jury assessed more than double that sum, $2,250, as the reasonable value of his work and labor, basing their finding, doubtless, on the testimony of appellee and the two architects testifying in his behalf, and probably allowing his claim of $438.27, for work done before the acceptance of said proposition. The estimate of appellee as to the value of his services is predicated upon his full performance of his duties as an architect and in superintending the building, and the preponderance of the evidence as to such performance, furnished by his own admissions and the testimony of at least four witnesses having means of knowledge, is against his version; and the two architects evidently give their estimate with the understanding that an architect had fully performed his duties, and not with the understanding he had failed to do so. Reluctant as we are to disturb verdicts, we feel it to be our duty to do so in this case, believing the damages assessed are excessive when the whole evidence is considered. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Green"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cockrell & Motees, attorneys for appellant.",
      "A. Flannigen & M. Millard, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Missouri Malleable Iron Works v. Julius F. Rivers Architectural Co.\n1. Damages\u2014When Excessive.\u2014A person contracted to perform certain work for \u00a71,500. As the work progressed he was paid \u00a7500, leaving due him \u00a71,000, had he completed the work. He was discharged, however, before its completion, and brought a suit in which he recovered \u00a73,250. Held, the damages were excessive.\nAssumpsit, on a breach of contract. Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. B. H. Canby, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the February term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed July 1, 1895.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis action in'assumpsit by appellee against appellant was brought to recover upon the following bill of particulars:\n\u201cMissouri Malleable Iron Co. to Julius F. Fivers Architectural Company, Dr.\n1891\u2014Apr. 20th to May 4th\u2014To making sketches and plans for trusses to span the foundry in annealing buildings of defendant in East St.\nLouis....................................$ 438.27\n1891\u2014May 6th to Sept. 9th\u2014To drawing plans, details and specifications for the main and additional buildings of defendant\u2019s plans and surveys, and giving levels\" for said buildings,\nsuperintending the construction thereof..... 6,000.00\n1891\u2014May 6th to September 9th\u2014To making specified estimates of the costs of the different works on and in the said several buildings of defendant at its request................\nTotal...................$7,701.95\u201d\nThe jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $2,250, and judgment was entered for that amount and costs, and the defendant took this appeal, and asks that the judgment be reversed. The jury were required to return special findings upon the following interrogatories:\n\u201c1st. 'Did the. plaintiff submit a proposition to the defendant on or about May 6, 1891, by which proposition he agreed to do and perform certain kinds of work therein specified for the defendant for the sum of $1,500 ?\u201d to which the jury answered \u201c Tes.\u201d\n\u201c2d. Did the defendant, on or about May 8, 1891, accept the proposition whereby the plaintiff proposed to do certain work for the defendant for the sum of $1,500, and did defendant notify plaintiff of such acceptance ? \u201d to which the jury answered \u201c Yes.\u201d\n\u201c 3d. Did the plaintiff and the def\u00e9ndant have a contract by which plaintiff was to do and perform certain work for the defendant, such as architectural, and superintending and supervising work, etc., for the sum of $1,500 % \u201d to which the jury answered \u201c Yes.\u201d\nThe following is the proposition so made and accepted, and contract entered into, as found by the jury:\n\u201c East St. Louis, Ill., Hay 6,1891.\nMissouri Malleable Iron Company, St. Louis, Mo.\nGentlemen : \"We propose to furnish for the contemplated building in East St. Louis, Ill., the drawings, tracings, blueprints and detail drawings and specifications needed for and in the construction and completion of the buildings.\nTo aid in taking sealed proposals for the contracts and submit same for your approval.\nTo lay out after block plans all the buildings.\nTo give levels for all foundations and walls.\nTo give report of work and materials.\nTo estimate the amount of work from time to time for\npayment, and give orders for same.\nTo superintend the buildings and do all the architect\u2019s duties for the sum of fifteen hundred dollars (\u00a71,500).\nThis does not include any contract work.\nMost respectfully,\nRivebs Architectural Co.,\nBy Jul. F. Rivebs.\u201d\nCockrell & Motees, attorneys for appellant.\nA. Flannigen & M. Millard, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0545-01",
  "first_page_order": 543,
  "last_page_order": 546
}