{
  "id": 5200209,
  "name": "James K. Eagle v. Henry H. Troup et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eagle v. Troup",
  "decision_date": "1896-12-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "302",
  "last_page": "304",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 302"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 3839,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "516d34de51e630d2aefac8daf5f7fed86e97f773cd4c844cde255d73aa83c166",
    "simhash": "1:fcc77fac42a58081",
    "word_count": 661
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James K. Eagle v. Henry H. Troup et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lacey\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a suit in assumpsit by appellees, under the firm name of H. H. Troup & Co., against appellant, to recover damages for the violation of a good-will contract between them, given in consideration of a sale of appellant\u2019s lumber yard in Kankakee, to appellees, dated March 5, 1891.\nThe contract sued on provides that appellant would not \u201c enter into the lumber business in any way, shape or form, nor sell lumber or building material on commission or for friendship, or in any way interfere with the lumber business in Kankakee (and other places named), as long as appellees remained in the lumber business in Kankakee, Illinois,\u201d and appellant agreed that he would pay to appellees \u201c $100 for every offense committed by interfering in any way with the lumber business in the town, as stated above.\u201d\nThe case was tried by a jury, and there was a verdict in appellee\u2019s favor of $1,290, and judgment was rendered thereon by the court in favor of appellees.\nThe appellant objects to the giving of appellees\u2019 instruction Ho. 1, as follows: \u201cYou have no right to charge the sum of $100 for each violation, unless you find from the evidence that the said amount was fixed by the parties as a penalty to secure the performance of the contract; \u201d and it is objected that the court erred in refusing instructions Nos. 16 and 17, offered by appellant, also in relation to the penalty; and in refusing appellant\u2019s refused instruction No. 13, in regard to the burden of proof.\nWhether the instructions were strictly accurate in all respects, as applied to the facts of the case, we need not consider, as, under the evidence and verdict of the jury, the giving and refusing of them worked no harm to the appellant. It is insisted that the $100 named in the contract for violation thereof should be regarded as a penalty, and not as liquidated damages.\nWhether this is so or not, the jury must have held it as a penalty, and not as liquidated damages; otherwise the verdict would have been six to ten thousand dollars, instead of $1,290.\nIt seems from the evidence that the verdict is largely within the bounds of the actual damages even, and the evidence would have justified a much larger amount for actual damages.\nThe evidence tends strongly to show that appellant never intended to abide by the contract, and deliberately and willfully violated it.\nThe device of selling to customers in Kankakee, and delivering in Chicago and other places, can not avail appellant.\nSuch sales interfered with appellee\u2019s business the same as in Kankakee.\nThe technical objection as to the introduction of evidence, contents of books, telegrams, etc., if error at all, is not reversible error.\nSeeing no serious error in the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lacey"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paddock & Cooper, attorneys for appellant.",
      "T. P. Bonfield, W. R. Hunter and H. IL Wheeler, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James K. Eagle v. Henry H. Troup et al.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Consideration of Alleged Errors.\u2014 Whether instructions given and refused were strictly accurate, in all respects, as applied to the facts of a case, need not be considered in a court of appeal if it appears from the evidence and the verdict, that the giving and refusing of them did no harm to the appellant.\n3. Contracts\u2014A Contract Construed.\u2014A person entered into a contract not to sell lumber in a particular town, or to interfere in any way with the lumber business in such town. Held, that sales made in such town, of lumber to be used there, but to be delivered to purchasers in other places, were violations of the contract.\nAssumpsit, on a special contract. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kankakee County; the Hon. Charles E. Starr, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 9,1896.\nPaddock & Cooper, attorneys for appellant.\nT. P. Bonfield, W. R. Hunter and H. IL Wheeler, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0302-01",
  "first_page_order": 300,
  "last_page_order": 302
}