{
  "id": 5252707,
  "name": "David Bradley Manufacturing Company v. Lansing J. Raynor, Receiver",
  "name_abbreviation": "David Bradley Manufacturing Co. v. Raynor",
  "decision_date": "1897-07-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "639",
  "last_page": "641",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 639"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "148 Ill. 598",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3059679
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/148/0598-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ill. 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2704319
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/74/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. 49",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 4404,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.643594115661138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29110365121673115
    },
    "sha256": "6dbb9a3da89c2744c2011bff030f2a080e11b76dd67e87c96d274cd88b5d8c7a",
    "simhash": "1:b2c27ca7a5ad174b",
    "word_count": 769
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "David Bradley Manufacturing Company v. Lansing J. Raynor, Receiver."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lacey\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellant intervened by petition to compel appellee as receiver of the Joliet Strowbridge Company to turn over to it certain farming implements held by it, claiming that the goods in question ivere put into the possession of the insolvent Joliet Strowbridge Company before insolvency and while it was conducting a retail business in farm implements as its agent, for sale, and not as purchaser; that the Joliet Strowbridge Company, as to the goods in question, was the bailee of appellant, and that the title to the goods remained in the appellant and was not in the consignee, which afterward became insolvent, and was put in the hands of appellee as receiver by order of the Circuit Court in chancery.\nThe amount of the goods in the aggregate claimed is $1,115.70.\nThe decision of the case hinges on the proper construction of two contracts between the appellant and the said Joliet Strowbridge Company of 1894 and 1895, and proof that settlements were never made unless the goods were sold.\nThe proof produced by the appellant fails to show under which contract, the one of 1894 or 1895, the goods were delivered to the Joliet Strowbridge Company. They were delivered under one or both, and as the burden of proof was on appellant if there was any difference, it must be assumed that the goods were delivered under the one of 1895, which it is conceded was most unfavorable to the appellant.\nThe first contract, dated October 9, 1894, is in the form of an order from the Joliet Strowbridge Company, directed to appellant, in which goods are ordered to be shipped to it at Joliet, Ill., subject to the conditions as named on the next page of the order, and for which the said consignee agreed \u201c to pay as per price and terms annexed to said goods, for all goods sold.\u201d According to conditions the Joliet Strowbridge Company was to pay the freight, and to stand, all breakage.\nThe second contract, of October 12, 1895, provided that the consignee should pay for the goods as per prices and terms annexed to said goods;\u201d and a memorandum was attached, by which the appellants were to carry \u201c all goods remaining unsold.\u201d\nIt seems to us that the transaction amounted to a sale of the goods to the Joliet Strowbridge Company, or at least it had an option to pay for the goods and retain them.\nIt was an absolute sale, so far as the appellant was concerned.\nThere was no agreement on the part of the Joliet Strowbridge Company to return the goods to appellant, or that it should retain any property interest in them, and any shortage was not to be allowed to the purchaser, and the goods were held and sold as the consignee saw proper without restriction, and were regarded and treated as the property of the purchaser, and settled for accordingly.\nIt is in principle the same as a case of \u201csale or return,\u201d leaving it optional with the purchaser and creditor to be extended until sale. We refer to the following cases, as establishing the doctrine that where \u201cthe receiver is at liberty to return another thing of equal value or the money value, he becomes a debtor to make the return, and the title to the property is changed\u2014it is a sale.\u201d Lonergan v. Stewart, 55 Ill. 49; Richardson v. Olmstead, 74 Ill. 213; Chickering v. Bastress, 130 Ill. 214; Lenz v. Harrison, 148 Ill. 598.\nWe are of the opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court was right, refusing the relief sought by appellants, and it is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lacey"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Egbert Phelps, attorney for appellant.",
      "George S. House, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "David Bradley Manufacturing Company v. Lansing J. Raynor, Receiver.\n1. Contracts\u2014Whether Sales or Bailments.\u2014A contract provided that the consignee should pay for goods to be delivered \u201c as per prices and terms annexed to said goods,\u201d and that the consignor should carry \u201c all goods remaining unsold.\u201d Held, that the contract was a sale and not a bailment.\n2. Same\u2014Whether Sales or Bailments\u2014The Bvle Stated.\u2014Where there is no obligation to return an article, the party receiving it being at liberty to return another thing of equal value, he becomes a debtor to make a return, and the title to the property is changed\u2014it is a sale.\nPetition, in assignment proceeding. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County; the Hon. Dorrance Dibell, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the December term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 1, 1897.\nEgbert Phelps, attorney for appellant.\nGeorge S. House, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0639-01",
  "first_page_order": 639,
  "last_page_order": 641
}