{
  "id": 5160988,
  "name": "Patrick E. Shanahan v. Knickerbocker Ice Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shanahan v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.",
  "decision_date": "1895-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "268",
  "last_page": "269",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 268"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2085,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "sha256": "9eb5abf0b5067e6488d0c045686132c68617b186e29c37e1e18f1ef826dd6d6f",
    "simhash": "1:37d856c5f1311494",
    "word_count": 351
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Patrick E. Shanahan v. Knickerbocker Ice Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a suit brought by appellee against appellant for the recovery of the price of certain material alleged to have been furnished by appellee to one Lunquist. The cause of action is founded upon a writing as follows:\n\u201c January 30, 1893.\nKnickerbocker Ice Company :\nI hereby agree to be responsible to you for any material you may furnish L. Lunquist for my building, 84th and Calumet avenue.\nP. E. Shanahan,\n6025 State street.\u201d\nPrior to the making of this undertaking, appellee had, at the request of Dr. Lunquist, hauled materials near to where he was building for appellant, leaving the articles on the prairie near the street. The materials were charged to Lunquist. He testified that he did not get any material from the Knickerbocker Ice Company until appellant went security. That he could not get the material until he had security.\nAppellant himself testified that he went over to see why \u201c they didn\u2019t deliver the stuff to Lunquist;\u201d that they told him it was all out there; that he signed the contract for the stuff to be delivered.\nThe defense interposed was that most of the materials had been delivered before the promise was signed. We do not think that the evidence so shows.\nArticles had been taken to the. building, but control over them had not been, and was not parted with, until after appellant became surety.\nThe judgment of the County Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chase & Durand and C. S. Cutting, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Matz & Fisher, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Patrick E. Shanahan v. Knickerbocker Ice Company.\n1. Questions of Fact\u2014Time of Furnishing Materials.\u2014Where a person signed an agreement to be responsible for materials furnished for the erection of a house, the question as to whether some of the material was furnished before the agreement was signed, is one of fact for the jury.\nAssumpsit, for materials furnished. Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles A. Bishop, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 12, 1895.\nChase & Durand and C. S. Cutting, attorneys for appellant.\nMatz & Fisher, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0268-01",
  "first_page_order": 266,
  "last_page_order": 267
}