{
  "id": 5187079,
  "name": "Paul F. Knefel and Urban P. Gallagher v. George C. Flanner and Andrew J. J. Miller",
  "name_abbreviation": "Knefel v. Flanner",
  "decision_date": "1896-06-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "209",
  "last_page": "212",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 Ill. App. 209"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5217546
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/41/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5173641
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/64/0300-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 310,
    "char_count": 4638,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7518237549756762
    },
    "sha256": "5c6d25aebb9374f95f04f7d8716192c4fdf1a6724d54c70c4c93321f2edb867e",
    "simhash": "1:10f45963a822e378",
    "word_count": 762
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:14.451346+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Paul F. Knefel and Urban P. Gallagher v. George C. Flanner and Andrew J. J. Miller."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of -the Court.\nAlthough there was a great deal of conflicting testimony \u00a1at the Circuit, we shall affirm this judgment upon facts undisputed.\nThe Realty Improvement Company and Thomas Hulse made a contract by which he undertook to build some 'houses for the company, and the appellants were sureties \u00a1upon a bond by Hulse, that he would perform his contract. As part of the arrangements, checks by the company were to be made payable to Hnlse and the appellants jointly. For indebtedness for materials for the houses, this instrument took the form here presented:\n\u201c Chicago Heights, III., March, 1893.\nMr. Thomas Hulse, Chicago Heights,\nIn account with G. C. Flanner, lumber:\nTo bill rendered...................... $520.67\n2\u20144 To 680 lbs. Lime, 3, 4 Bbls 65 c... 2.21\n\u20146 To 14 Bu. Hair 22 c.,........... 3.08\n\u20148 \u201c 5 Bbls. Lime 65 c.,............ 3.25 529.21\nCredits.\n\u20149 By 309 sacks returned, 10 c...... 30.90\n24\u2014 \u201c \u201c \u201c \u201c c..____ 53.80 84.70\n$444.51\nCr. by 2 Crs. sand at 10.00____...... 20.00\nBalance on about............... 424.51.\nBy 2 M. brick, at 9.00.............. 18.00\n$406.51\nLumber bill. ........... 2,700.09\n$3,106.51\nPaul F. Knefel & Co.:\nPlease pay Flanner & Miller the above bill, and oblige,\nThomas Hulse.\nThis amount of $3,106.51 to be paid to Flanner & Miller out of the first money received by us for the $8,000 still due Hulse from the Detroit Eealty Company or money in our possession.\nPaul F. Kneeel & Co. \u201d\nThe signature by Hulse made what preceded it a bill of exchange, and what the appellant signed was a conditional acceptance. Bowers v. Industrial Bank, 64 Ill. App. 300; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst., Sec. 508.\nMarch 10,1893, the appellants paid to the appellees $1,200 as an advance upon the \u201c order \u201d before receiving the money from the company. Though in the acceptance the company is called the Detroit Eealty Company, its real name seems to be the Eealty Improvement Company, with its home office in Detroit.\nMarch 13th or 14th, Hulse brought to the appellants a check from the company for $4,500 payable to himself and the appellants jointly, and the appellants took it with his indorsement upon it, indorsed it themselves, and put it in bank to the credit of a building company, and paid Hulse with money of the building company $3,300, retaining $1,200 before advanced to the appellees.\nHow when appellants accepted, they meant something by what they wrote. The meaning of a written instrument is to be ascertained from its words, read in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Thomas v. Wiggins, 41 Ill. 470, and cases there cited.\nMoney to pay for the houses was coming in checks which could be used only by an indorsement by the appellants, and it was with reference to such money that the acceptance was given. Any controversy which the appellants had with Hulse did not concern the appellees. The appellees were entitled to recover, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Levi Sprague, attorney for appellants.",
      "William Vocee and John J. Healy, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Paul F. Knefel and Urban P. Gallagher v. George C. Flanner and Andrew J. J. Miller.\n1. Bill of Exchange\u2014 What is.\u2014The following instrument\u2014\n\u201cChicago Heights, III., March, 1893.\nMr. Thomas Hulse, Chicago Heights : In account with Gh C. Flanner, lumber: To Bill rendered. $520 67 2/4 To 680 lbs. Lime 3, 4 bbls. 65c................. 2 21 / 6 To 14 Bu. Hair 22c............................ 3 08 /8 \u201c 5 Bbls. Lime, 65c......................... 3 25 529 21\nCredits. 9 By 309 Sacks returned, 10c................ 30 90 24 \u201c 538 \u201c \u201c \u201c ............... 53 80 84 70 ; $ 444 51 Cr. By 2 Crs. sand @ 10.00....................... 20 00 Balance on about......................... $ 424 51 \u201c 2 M. Brick, @ 9.00....................... 18 00 $ 406 51 Lumber Bill 27 00 $ 3,106 .51\nPaul F. Knefel & Co.. Please pay Planner & Miller the above bill, and oblige Thomas Hulse\u201d \u2014\nis held to be a bill of exchange.\n2. Same\u2014A Conditional Acceptance..\u2014The following indorsement\u2014\n\u201c This amount of $3,106.51 to be paid to Planner & Miller out of the first money received by us of the $8,000 still due Hulse from The Detroit Realty Company or money in our possession. Paul F. Knefel & Co.\u201d\u2014 upon the foregoing bill of exchange, is a conditional acceptance.\n3. Written Instruments\u2014Interpretation of.\u2014The meaning of a written instrument is to be ascertained from its words, read in light of surrounding circumstances.\nAssumpsit, upon an account due, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 29, 1896.\nLevi Sprague, attorney for appellants.\nWilliam Vocee and John J. Healy, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0209-01",
  "first_page_order": 205,
  "last_page_order": 208
}