{
  "id": 5203753,
  "name": "Samuel P. Parmly v. Uriah B. Ferris and John H. Brown",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parmly v. Ferris",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "132",
  "last_page": "134",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 132"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 196,
    "char_count": 2397,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "sha256": "43ed5488c338f745cbd6a0fdf5c373b4407d30f9eb30a679366ecb8bba2c1df4",
    "simhash": "1:dbc3e583dabd0170",
    "word_count": 404
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel P. Parmly v. Uriah B. Ferris and John H. Brown."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe question in the court below was: Did appellees comply with their contract %\nThe work was to be completed in a first-class manner.\nOne of appellees testified that he did not say it was a first-class sidewalk; that it was a fair, ordinary walk, such as is being laid in Chicago by thousands.\nAnother .witness for appellees testified that the walk, when finished, appeared to be a good, fair walk, as good as is usually built; in good condition every -way.\nThe clear proponderance of the evidence is that the walk was never completed according to the contract. .\nThe testimony as to the insufficiency of the walk is such that the opposing testimony ivas greatly overcome.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Heckman & Elsdon, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Davidson & Trumbo, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel P. Parmly v. Uriah B. Ferris and John H. Brown.\n1. Judgment\u2014Against the Preponderance of the Evidence.\u2014Where the clear preponderance of evidence is against the finding, the judgment based upon it will he reversed.\nAssumpsit, for the price of laying a walk. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1897.\nHeckman & Elsdon, attorneys for appellant.\nDavidson & Trumbo, attorneys for appellees.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis was an action in assumpsit, brought by the appellees in the Circuit Court of Cook County on the 12th day of June, 1894, to recover the contract price for laying 2,250 square feet of cement sidewalk, at eighteen cents per square foot. The contract arose from a written proposition of appellees, which was verbally accepted by Parmly Brothers, a firm composed of the appellant and one Henry C. Parmly, now deceased, which proposition was as follows :\n\u201c Chicago, June 26, 1891.\nParmly Brothers:\nWe propose to furnish all the labor and material necessary to complete the cement sidewalk six feet wide, on Seventy-sixth street, along your lot number 74, according to the specifications, plans and requirements of the city of Chicago, and complete the same in a first-class manner, including the packing, ramming or settling with water the loose sand filling, now being put in by Mr. Brown, for the sum of eighteen cents per square foot, and to guarantee the same for a term of ten years.\nVery truly,\nU. B. Ferris.\nJohn H. Brown.\u201d"
  },
  "file_name": "0132-01",
  "first_page_order": 130,
  "last_page_order": 132
}
