{
  "id": 5789645,
  "name": "Andrew Jordon v. The Spalding Lumber Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jordon v. Spalding Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1898-10-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "306",
  "last_page": "309",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 306"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 314,
    "char_count": 5389,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "sha256": "e31c3dbdc824496e0d570effd18376fe31cd457d23c1dc4b3e8dc3fcdc2b7aec",
    "simhash": "1:018bd6ab04a455f9",
    "word_count": 902
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:24:05.225079+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Andrew Jordon v. The Spalding Lumber Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Burroughs\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit instituted by the appellant against the appellees in the Circuit Court of Ford County, where a trial by jury was had, a verdict rendered for the appellees upon which judgment was entered, and the appellant brings the case to this court by appeal and insists upon a reversal of that judgment upon the grounds, (1) that the verdict is against the evidence; (2) that the court ruled erroneously on the evidence; and (3) that the\" court ruled erroneously on the instructions to the jury.\nThe declaration charges that the appellee sold to the appellant a large quantity of \u201c Acme Plaster,\u201d to wit, 200 sacks, for the price of, to wit, fifty cents per sack, for the purpose of plastering a house then being constructed by the appellant for a homestead; and then averr\u00e9d that the plaster which the appellees sold to the appellant was agreed by the appellees to be fit and suitable to be used in properly plastering said house; nevertheless the appellees, under said contract of sale, delivered to the appellant .plaster, to wit, 200 sacks, which was not suitable to be used on his house because it was not good merchantable plaster, but of an inferior character and adulterated with other substances, and was not \u201c Acme Plaster; \u201d and being put on the house, made a poor and unsatisfactory job, which damaged the house.\nThe appellees interposed a plea of general issue, upon which the appellant joined. The evidence disclosed that the appellees kept, in the city of Gibson, a lumber yard, and sold lime and plaster. In June, 1897, the appellant was about to construct a dwelling house in Gibson, and applied to the appellees to purchase the lumber and other materials they sold, to construct the house. On that day he did purchase from the appellees the lumber therefor, which amounted to $865; and at the same time the parties entered into a contract in writing as follows:\n\u201c Gibson City, Ford County, Ill., June 23, 1897.\nI hereby agree to buy What lime and cement will be needed in the erection of my house, of the Spalding Lumber Company, at the following prices:\nLump Lime........................ 80c a barrel.\nGround Lime......................85c a barrel.\nCement..........................$1.25 a barrel.\nCement in sacks.................... .40c a sack.\nAcme Plaster..................65c per hundred.\nAndrew Jordan.\nThis agreement accepted.\nSpalding Lumber Company.\u201d\nUnder this written contract the appellees, in September, 1897, delivered to appellant 131 sacks of \u201c Acme Plaster,\u201d which was used by appellant in plastering his house during the latter .part of September and a part of October; the weather being then very dry, the plaster, after it was on, dried very quickly, was spotted in color and at many places' was crumbly and soft, so that it was not satisfactory.\nThe evidence tended strongly to show that the reason the plastering was spotted in color, in places crumbly and soft, was because the \u201c Acme Plaster \u201d purchased and delivered was not properly mixed or put on, and that it was permitted to dry too quickly; in short, that the men mixing and putting on the plaster did not do it properly,\" which was the only reason why the job was not satisfactory; and that the 131 sacks of \u201c Acme Plaster\u201d sold and delivered was good, merchantable plaster, genuine, good quality, unadulterated, or in any manner injured, and well adapted to and a proper material for plastering a dwelling house. \u2018\nIt will be seen, therefore, that it became a question of fact whether the damages complained of by the appellant were caused by reason of the \u201cAcme Plaster\u201d sold and delivered being impure, not of the kind agreed to be sold, or not suited for plastering the house; or was it occasioned by reason alone of the improper manner the plaster was mixed and put on by the servants of the appellant ? This question was settled by the jury against the contention of the appellant; and upon examination of the evidence, as contained in the record before us, we must say, the. jury settled it correctly in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence.\nThe complaint made by counsel for the appellant that the rulings of the trial court on the evidence were prejudicial to the appellant, are not borne out by the record, but it does show that the court neither admitted nor excluded any evidence which could have prejudiced the appellant\u2019s rights before the jury.\n\u2022 We have examined the instructions given and refused by the court, of which complaint is. made, and are satisfied no prejudicial error was made by the Circuit Court in its rulings on these.\nThis record shows that substantial justice has been done the parties, and for that reason we affirm the judgment rendered. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Burroughs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tipton & Tipton and S. A. Cranston, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Sample & Morrissey and H. L. Phillips, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Andrew Jordon v. The Spalding Lumber Co.\n1. Questions of Fact\u2014Are for the \u25a0 Jury.\u2014Where a litigation involves questions of fact alone, and there is evidence to sustain the finding, the verdict will stand.\nAssumpsit, for merchandise sold and delivered. Trial in the Circuit Court of Ford County;- the Hon. John H. Moffett, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1898.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1898.\nTipton & Tipton and S. A. Cranston, attorneys for appellant.\nSample & Morrissey and H. L. Phillips, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0306-01",
  "first_page_order": 316,
  "last_page_order": 319
}