{
  "id": 5242400,
  "name": "Samuel Davis v. Rittenhouse & Embree Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Rittenhouse & Embree Co.",
  "decision_date": "1897-10-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "58",
  "last_page": "59",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 58"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2699537
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/75/0595-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        817822
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/56/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5257370
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/35/0424-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1719,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1568158993053263
    },
    "sha256": "acd7ed68538b7e950afceb9acb7f7d622ae69c103195745a2aee23932b969e1a",
    "simhash": "1:7b2d0fbed8a4a230",
    "word_count": 289
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:22:34.845989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel Davis v. Rittenhouse & Embree Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sears\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\n\u25a0 This cause was brought by the appellee to recover upon an alleged oral acceptance of a written order. The order was as follows:\n\u201c Chicago, 11, 1.4, 1895.\nMr. Sam\u2019l Davis.\nPlease pay to Rittenhouse & Embree Co. the sum of five hundred twenty-seven and 19-100 dollars ($527.19) in full for all lumber delivered at your building situated between; 29th and 30th, Wabash avenue, and charge the amount to my contract. ' \u2022\nSigned : Jas. R. Scott.\u201d\nThe suit resulted in verdict and judgment for appellee.\n\u25a0 The evidence warranted the jury in finding that there was an oral acceptance by appellant, unqualified except as to time of payment... \u25a0 .\nIt is contended by counsel for appellant that' there should-have been no recovery because the. acceptance of the order was not in writing, and therefore was within the application of the statute of frauds.\nThis contention can not be supported. It is settled by the decisions of this State that there may be a valid acceptance of a bill of exchange or order, though such acceptance be made orally and not in writing. Mason v. Dousay, 35 Ill. 424; Phelps v. Northup, 56 Ill. 156; Sturges v. The Fourth Nat. Bk., 75 Ill. 595.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sears"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cowen & Houseman, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Francis T. Murphy, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel Davis v. Rittenhouse & Embree Company.\n1. Bills of Exchange\u2014Parol Acceptance.\u2014A parol acceptance of a bill of exchange or order, is valid in this State and binding upon the acceptor.\nAssumpsit, on an order. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1897. Affirmed. Opinion filed October 11, 1897.\nCowen & Houseman, attorneys for appellant.\nFrancis T. Murphy, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0058-01",
  "first_page_order": 56,
  "last_page_order": 57
}