{ "id": 5159319, "name": "Dominic Botto v. Raymond Ringwald", "name_abbreviation": "Botto v. Ringwald", "decision_date": "1895-10-31", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "415", "last_page": "418", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "60 Ill. App. 415" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "155 Ill. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill. App. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5035358 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/41/0259-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 309, "char_count": 5273, "ocr_confidence": 0.453, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1558722149438056 }, "sha256": "dadcbd0d74b0ce7a10c194c0d0014c1c9c91122bb7c80752542c5c376a6245ab", "simhash": "1:f94b20aa63a0eb30", "word_count": 918 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Dominic Botto v. Raymond Ringwald." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a petition for a mechanio\u2019s lien, appellant having made a contract with one Charles Wulff to furnish the materials and do the carpenter work upon a house about to be built by appellant. Wolff contracted with the appellee to furnish, the mill work, including stairs for said building, for the sum of $1,450.\nThe master has found that appellee, under this contract, furnished materials of the value of $63.68 which were not paid for, and then, being fearful that he would not get his pay, declined to go on with his contract; that thereupon he saw appellant and agreed with him to furnish materials upon the promise of appellant to pay for the same, and that deducting from the value of the total material not paid for, that supplied prior to the arrangement of appellee with appellant, there is now due to appellee from said Botto the sum of $665.52.\nAccording to the testimony of appellee\u2019s bookkeeper, which as to amounts seems undisputed, the total value of the materials delivered to appellant by appellee was $1,229.20, upon which appellant has paid $500, leaving a balance of $729.20; deducting from this sum $63.68, the value of material which the master finds was delivered prior to the promise of appellant to appellee, leaves the amount of \u00a7665.52.\nWe do not find in the record of this cause any sufficient warrant for setting aside the conclusion of the master and court as to the facts of this case.\nThe clear preponderance of the evidence sustains the master\u2019s finding. There were reasons why appellant should have promised to pay appellee, as well as those set forth by counsel to show why appellant would not have made such promise.\nAs the contract with Wulff was not for special sums for particular items, but for one amount for many articles, and as appellant\u2019s promise was merely to pay if appellee would deliver according to such contracts, appellee could not, in the statutory notice by him filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court, put a price or value to the several items thereof; under the contract the several items had not a separate price or value; one price for all was agreed upon.\nIn the notice there is no dollar mark opposite the figures showing the value or price; but the figures are in ruled columns, and it clearly appears that those representing cents are in the column to the right of those representing dollars. Ho business man, indeed no person of fair intelligence and education, looking at this notice, would have any doubt as to what the figures mean; why, then, should a master or court affect to be ignorant of what is clearly communicated, or declare that the notice does not give information, which it plainly does ? Kinsley v. International Military Encampment Co., 41 Ill. App. 259-267.\nWe regard the amendment to the petition as material, but see no reason why it should not have been permitted. Culver v. Scroth, 155 Ill. 437.\nHo notice to begin suit was given by appellant to appellee, and therefore the provisions of section 32 of the mechanic\u2019s lien statute do not apply.\nAccording to the record here filed the statement in the verification of the notice filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court is that the sum of $723.20 is due; deducting from this $63.68, leaves $659.52 as the amount which the master should have found. Add interest from February 27th to June 26th, at five per cent per annum, $10.90, and the total makes the sum of $670.40.\nThe decree of the court below as to the amount for which a lien was awarded is set aside and a decree here entered for the sum of $670.40, with interest at five per cent per annum from February 27, 1895; in all other respects the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAppellant will recover his costs in this court. Eeversed in part and affirmed in part.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "W. T. Burgess, attorney for appellant.", "Coleman Williams & Linden, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Dominic Botto v. Raymond Ringwald.\n1. Mechanics\u2019 Liens\u2014Statutory Notice Requisite.\u2014A person contracted with a builder to furnish mill work for a house for a named sum; becoming dissatisfied he refused to go on with the contract, but agreed with the owner to furnish the materials upon his promise to pay for them. As the contract was for one amount for many articles and the owner\u2019s promise was to pay, if the materials were delivered according to the contract, it was held that the party furnishing the material could not, in the statutory notice required to be filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court, put a value or price upon the several items furnished, as, under . the contract, one price was agreed upon for all.\n2. Same\u2014Requisites of the Notice\u2014Dollar Mark\u2014A notice for a mechanic\u2019s lien under the statute, if .otherwise sufficient, is not invalid because there is no dollar mark opposite the figures showing the value or price of material furnished, where the figures are in ruled columns, and it clearly appears that those representing cents are in the column to the right of those representing dollars.\nPetition for a Mechanic's Lien.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Thomas G-. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.\nOpinion filed October 31, 1895.\nW. T. Burgess, attorney for appellant.\nColeman Williams & Linden, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0415-01", "first_page_order": 413, "last_page_order": 416 }