{
  "id": 5162059,
  "name": "Charles T. Mandel v. H. & N. Gundershimer",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mandel v. Gundershimer",
  "decision_date": "1895-12-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "332",
  "last_page": "333",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 332"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. 343",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5276313
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/54/0343-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2681483
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/80/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2633853
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/69/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5301795
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/52/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        428215
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/38/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill. 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5207988
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/30/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5248605
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0013-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2579257
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/12/0148-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 198,
    "char_count": 2427,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15589403088751505
    },
    "sha256": "89d534a6fe63dab3c9e0026f7fff5d0e45646afcc94a1175d70f250241a302d3",
    "simhash": "1:5e2f5e989c3922d8",
    "word_count": 434
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:02.966731+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles T. Mandel v. H. & N. Gundershimer."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court. \u25a0\nThe question here presented is as to the sufficiency of a mere promise, to remove the bar of the statute of limitations, the suit being an action for goods sold.\nIn this case it appeared that Mr. Lewis, a collector for plaintiff\u2019s attorneys, called on the defendant, presenting to him a statement of account, and that the defendant stated that he could not pay it then, but if given ninety days, he, would pay the whole amount due. Lewis replied, \u201c You can have that ninety days.\u201d That before the expiration of such ninety days, Lewis again called on the defendant, who then said he had made an arrangement to pay in ninety days which time had not expired, and that he would pay it in ninety days; that Lewis after the end of the ninety days again called, when defendant said he would go over to the office and pay the claim as soon as he could. William Ferguson testified that, being sent with the claim by plaintiff\u2019s attorneys to the defendant, the defendant said he didn\u2019t know just what he could do right then, but that he could do something on it in a week; that defendant afterward said that he couldn\u2019t pay the claim just then, as he had other accounts to pay, but just as soon as he got them wound up, he would pay this claim.\nLewis and William Ferguson, being the collecting agents of plaintiff\u2019s attorneys, in whose hands the claim was for collection, the unqualified acknowledgment of the debt and the unequivocal promise to pay were sufficient to take the case out of the statute of limitations. Ayers v. Richards, 12 Ill. 146; Homer v. Starkey, 27 Ill. 13; Sennott v. Homer, 30 Ill. 429; Parsons v. N. I. C. & I. Co., of La Salle, 38 Ill. 430; Norton v. Colby, 52 Ill. 198; Carroll v. Forsythe, 69 Ill. 127; Wachter v. Albee, 80 Ill. 47; Wooters v. King, 54 Ill. 343.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. W. Yeirs and M. P. Hathaway, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Do appearance for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles T. Mandel v. H. & N. Gundershimer.\n1. Statute of Limitations\u2014New Promise to Pay.\u2014The unqualified acknowledgment of a debt, and the unequivocal promise to pay it, are sufficient to take a case out of the statute of limitations.\nAssumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 2, 1895.\nB. W. Yeirs and M. P. Hathaway, attorneys for appellant.\nDo appearance for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0332-01",
  "first_page_order": 330,
  "last_page_order": 331
}