{
  "id": 5175562,
  "name": "Fred M. Smith v. C. E. Ainsworth et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Ainsworth",
  "decision_date": "1896-04-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "157",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 157"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 367,
    "char_count": 5005,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39291074498937967
    },
    "sha256": "04b2fac3a3e1053315e982a5a5becdfe484a9ad509a35629ff689ab3f5a7e065",
    "simhash": "1:dce3cf711d781eee",
    "word_count": 898
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fred M. Smith v. C. E. Ainsworth et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThese parties deal in fish: the appellant in Chicago, the appellees at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.\nThe matter in suit is shown by correspondence as follows \u2014first, a letter:\n\u201c Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., May 16, 1892.\nF. M. Smith, Chicago.\nDear Sir:\u2014We would like to deal with you this season in fish and make the same arrangement that we have with our other customers. To have a standing order from our customers and when our prices are not satisfactory to notify us, and we can then accept the price or discontinue shipments. We deal with Sloan, Lewis & Lehrkind, Booth, and others in this way. We are now billing white fish at six cents, trout at five cents.\nTours respectfully,\nAinswobth & Ganley.\u201d\nThen another letter:\n\u201c Chicago, May 18, 1892.\nAinsworth & Ganley, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.\nDeab Sibs :\u2014In reply to your esteemed favor of the 16th inst., I have all my arrangements made for fish for this season, and thank you for your offer, but don\u2019t think I can do anything with your house this summer.\nTours respectfully,\nF. M. Smith.\u201d\nThen a telegram:\n\u201cMay 19/1892.\nDated Chicago, 111., 19.\nTo Ainsworth & Ganley:\nShip first boat, small car, largest white. Make price low as possible. See letter. Answer.\nF. M. Smith.\u201d\nThen another telegram:\n\u201cMay 20,1892.,\nTo F. M. Smith & Co., Chicago, III., 8 Dearborn St.:\nWill ship you a car to-morrow, extra fine white, about three pounds.\nA. & G.\u201d\nThen a postal card:\n\u201c Chicago, May 20, 1892.\nAinsworth & Ganley, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.:\nTour telegram received, notifying me of shipment of car white. Tou may ship another, if fish are good size, when the next boat leaves, and wire when you ship.\nTours \u2018respectfully,\nF. M. Smith.\u201d\nThen another letter:\n\u201cChicago, May 20, 1892.\nAinsworth & Ganley, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.:\nDeab Sibs : I wired you last night to ship me, on first boat, one car largest white, and make price as low as possible, and received your wire to-day, saying you would ship.\nIt seems that there was a letter written to you a few days ago, in which the statement was made that I had my arrangements' made for fish this summer. This was an error and done without my knowledge. I shall probably buy a good quantity of fish from your house this season, if you can supply me regularly and prices are right, so keep me posted.\nTours truly,\nF. M\u201e Smith.\u201d\nThen another telegram:\n\u201c May 23,1892.\nTo F. M. Smith, 8 Dearborn St., Chicago.:\nTwo cars fish on the Gould this morning.\nA. & G \u201d\nThen another telegram:\n\u201c May 25,1892.\nDated Chicago, 111., 25.\nTo Ainsworth & Ganley:\nShip no more fish till further orders.\nF. M. Smith.\u201d\nThen an invoice:\n\u201c Sahlt Ste. Marie, Michigan, May 23, 1892.\nF. M. Smith & Co.\nBought of Ainsworth & Ganley.\nWholesale Dealers in Fish.\n1992 white, car 50 $119 52\n1031 \u201c 61 86\n243 extra large 14 58\n448 trout 24 64\n25 sturgeon 1 00\n5 pickerel \u25a0 20\n58 pike, car 121 2 90\nReturn freight, 2 cars 6 00\n$230 70\u201d\nThen another letter:\n\u201c Chicago, May 25, 1892.\nMessrs. Ainsworth & Ganley, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.\nDeart, Sirs : Tour two cars fish received this a. m., and what I have used of them so far are very nice and I am well pleased, but you are a little too high on price. The Buffalo Fish Co., of Buffalo, 27. Y., are selling and offering elegant white fish at 5\u00a3 cts. lb. f. o. b. Chicago, and I can buy all the trout I want at 5c. lb. here. This is the reason I wired you to-day to ship no more till further orders. If you can make prices to compete with others, I should like to place standing order with you. Please let me hear, from you.\nYours truly,\nF. M. Smith.\u201d\nMay 20, 1892, was Friday, and the \u201c Gould\u201d should have sailed from the Sault the next morning, but was delayed, and did not sail until the next Monday morning; which is the explanation by the appellees why they sent two cars on her in accordance, as they believed, .with the wish of the appellant, expressed in his dispatch of May 20th. May 27, 1892, the appellant wrote a letter, attempting to withdraw what we hold to be an acceptance of the fish by his letter \u00a9f May 25th.\nHolding that attempt to withdraw ineffectual, cuts off all the defense that the appellant tried to make, and the judgment for the appellees is affirmed.\nThat the court would not allow the appellees the return freight they charged in the invoice, and but five cents a pound for trout, is no ground of complaint by the appellant.\nThe administration of the law is practical, not metaphysical. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Johnson & Morrill, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Paden & Gridley, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fred M. Smith v. C. E. Ainsworth et al.\n1. Vendor and Vendee\u2014Power to Reject Goods.\u2014It any act is done by the buyer which he would have no right to do, unless as owner of the goods, he can not subsequently reject the goods.\nAssumpsit, for goods sold. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur H. Chetlain, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 27, 1896.\nJohnson & Morrill, attorneys for appellant.\nPaden & Gridley, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0157-01",
  "first_page_order": 155,
  "last_page_order": 158
}