{
  "id": 5250457,
  "name": "Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Henry D. Turney et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Turney",
  "decision_date": "1897-06-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "589",
  "last_page": "592",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 589"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 382,
    "char_count": 5889,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4371264502293377
    },
    "sha256": "fe11426acd8c561a43d187cc863241d9d61a010dc76f4ebd03fedc14f15d1bbf",
    "simhash": "1:c3dd1ee883d0368f",
    "word_count": 1006
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Henry D. Turney et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit brought by appellees to recover for coal sold and delivered to appellant under a parol contract in December, 1893, and January, 1894, and under a written contract in February, 1894. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellees for $2,396.06.\nThere are two grounds upon which appellant chiefly relies for a reversal, viz.:\n1. That the coal delivered was sold under an express warranty as to its steam producing qualities, and that there was a breach of that warranty by reason of which appellant suffered great damage which was not allowed it as against the purchase price of the coal.\n2. The amount found by the jury was excessive by reason of their allowing interest to the appellees.\nThe evidence in the record shows that D. H. Turney & Co. are extensive dealers in coal, having a branch office in Peoria. Prior to December, 1893, they had contracted to take the entire output of the Eeed City coal mines, mines located about thirteen pifies west of Peoria. In their efforts to have the coal from those mines taken by large consumers in Peoria, appellant, which is a corporation operating a glucose plant in that city, was induced to order quite a number of car loads, which were delivered from time to time during the months of December, 1893, and January, 1894.\nOne James Sterritt was the superintendent of the Eeed City Coal Company, and was quite .active in assisting Turney & Go. in their efforts to induce appellant and other consumers to use the coal from those mines. He made certain representations as to the steam producing qualities of the coal, which upon testing were shown to be false. It is contended that those representations amounted to a warranty of Turney & Co.\nIt should be observed that Sterritt was not in the employ of Turney & Co., and was not authorized to make a warranty. His activity in the matter was in the interest, of the coal company, because, under its contract with Turney & Co., the more coal that could be used in Peoria the better it would be for that company. The proofs show that appellant\u2019s manager was fully advised as to Sterritt\u2019s position in the matter. We are clearly of the opinion that Sterritt was not authorized to warrant the quality of the coal for appellees, and in that view it is not necessary to discuss the conflict between his testimony and that of appellant\u2019s manager, Ehodehamel.\nAfter appellant had been using the coal for two months, it was sufficiently satisfied with it to enter into the following written contract in which there is no semblance to a warranty or any representation as to steam producing qualities:\n\u201c Chicago, Feb. 1, 1894. The Peoria'Grape Sugar Works, Peoria, Ill.\nGentlemen. Confirming our conversation, we desire to submit the following proposition:\nWe will agree to furnish you with your entire requirements of coal, which we understand to be from four to eight cars per day, of our Reed City lump coal delivered on board cars at your works, from date to February 1,1895, for \u00a71.20 per net ton. Mixed, nut, pea and slack made from lump taken by you at ten cents per net ton at the mines. Mine weights as taken at original point of shipment to govern settlement, and payments to be made for coal on or before the 20th of the month next, following shipment.\nThis proposition is made subject to strikes, contingencies of transportation and other causes beyond our control.\nTours very truly,\nII. \u00cd). Turkey & Co.,\nPer Adams & O\u2019Gara, Ag\u2019ts.\nH. 0. A.\nWe accept the above proposition.\nPeoria Grape Sugar Co.,\nBy B. F. Rhodehamel, Manager.\u201d\nIf the coal fell so far short of Sterritt\u2019s representations, as appellant would have us believe, it seems to us that appellant\u2019s manager was guilty of great oversight in not having the written contract contain some requirement as to quality.\nAll deliveries of coal after the 1st of February, 1894, were governed by that contract. Hence instructions one and two given for appellees were not erroneous.\nEntertaining the view as above expressed, that Staritt was not the agent of appellees, the giving of the eighth instruction was proper.\nWe see no good cause for complaint as to the giving or modifying of instructions upon the question of warranty.\nAs to the other ground urged, we are of the opinion that the allowance of interest was proper. There was such vexatious delay in the payment of the claim as the statute contemplates. Appellees were entitled to interest from the 20th of March, 1894, the date when appellant\u2019s obligation to pay matured.\nHence, the giving of appellee\u2019s fifth instruction, that if the jury found for the plaintiffs and further found from the evidence that there had been unreasonable and vexatious delay in the payment of the amount they should allow five per cent interest was proper.\nThe jury really fixed the damages at a less amount than appellees were entitled to.\nThere is no sufficient ground for a reversal of the. judgment. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Page, Wead & Putebbaugh, attorneys for appellant.",
      "\u25a0 R\u00fcnnells & Burry, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Henry D. Turney et al.\n1. Agency\u2014The Relation Found not to Exist.\u2014The court holds that the person making the warranty relied on by appellants was not the agent of appellees, and hence not authorized to make such warranty.\n2. Interest\u2014Alloived on Account of Unreasonable and Vexatious Delay of Payment.\u2014The court holds in this case that there was such vexatious delay in the payment of the claims sued on, as the statute contemplates, and the allowance of five per cent interest from the maturity of the debt is approved.\nAssumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria County; the Hon. Thomas M. Shaw, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the December term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 26, 1897.\nPage, Wead & Putebbaugh, attorneys for appellant.\n\u25a0 R\u00fcnnells & Burry, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0589-01",
  "first_page_order": 589,
  "last_page_order": 592
}