{
  "id": 5201748,
  "name": "George R. Des Rivieres v. Lumber District Milling Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Des Rivieres v. Lumber District Milling Co.",
  "decision_date": "1897-02-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "31",
  "last_page": "32",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 31"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 2223,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.076306636737454e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1590859621528151
    },
    "sha256": "267b4511409aa5c98889e9c0d39ee9ac34aa97f594a7bdbaf1198cac10ea42e3",
    "simhash": "1:bba3f8f11e297479",
    "word_count": 393
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George R. Des Rivieres v. Lumber District Milling Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIn August, 1891, these parties made a contract by which the appellee agreed to sell to the appellant all the surplus of shavings made by the appellee at its mill on the corner of Throop and Hinman streets, for one year from the tenth day of that month, after retaining what might be needed for fuel for the mill and other use of the appellee.\nThere is no other designation of the subject of the sale than such shavings as might be made at a particular mill, and no agreement by the appellee, express or implied, to make shavings. It w'ould be absurd to suppose that the parties contemplated that the appellee should, regardless of other considerations, continue its business for the mere purpose of producing shavings for the appellant.\nThe identity of the subject of sale is fixed by the same principle of construction as is applied to insurance on merchandise or household goods. Bradbury v. Insurance Companies, 80 Maine, 396.\nThe product by the appellee at that one mill then occupied by the appellee, and nothing else, was what the appellee agreed to sell.\nBefore the year was out, the appellee left that mill and, from the same owner, took another on the opposite side of Throop street.\nThe appellant sued for a refusal by the appellee to deliver the shavings made at that mill. The Superior Court rightly held that such refusal was no cause of action, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stielen & King, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Flower, Smith & Musgrave, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George R. Des Rivieres v. Lumber District Milling Company.\n1. Contracts\u2014A Contract Constmed.\u2014A and B made a contract by which A agreed to sell to B \u201c all the surplus shavings made by him at his mill on the corner of Throop and Hinman streets for one year.\"\u2019 Before the year was out A left the mill described and took another. B sued for a refusal by A to deliver the shavings made at the new mill. Held, that such refusal did not give B a cause of action.\nAssumpsit, for breach of contract to sell shavings. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 9, 1897.\nStielen & King, attorneys for appellant.\nFlower, Smith & Musgrave, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0031-01",
  "first_page_order": 29,
  "last_page_order": 30
}
