{
  "id": 5262370,
  "name": "William Willer, doing Business under the Name of The Willer Mfg. Co., v. George H. Stahl",
  "name_abbreviation": "Willer v. Stahl",
  "decision_date": "1899-09-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "498",
  "last_page": "500",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 498"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 343,
    "char_count": 5722,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "sha256": "34f33c199b4375dc352c6b812207d884d24bd0588bb556479ddfe1ef12b632c2",
    "simhash": "1:47f7f668474e4843",
    "word_count": 999
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:11.837712+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Willer, doing Business under the Name of The Willer Mfg. Co., v. George H. Stahl."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Burroughs,\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, begun and tried in the Circuit Court of Adams County, in which the appellant sought to recover from the appellee $480 as the agreed price for twenty-eight sets of inside window blinds and the guide strips for the same, which he claims were ordered from him by the appellee, to be used in his new residence, then in the course of \u25a0construction.\nThe case was tried before a jury, and a verdict found in favor of the appellee, upon which the court, after overruling a motion for a new trial, entered judgment. Appellant brings the case to this court by appeal, and urges us to reverse the judgment upon the grounds that the finding of the jury is contrary to the evidence, and that the court erred in its rulings on the evidence and the instruction.\nThe evidence shows that appellant\u2019s traveling salesman, B. W. Burch, called several times upon appellee at his residence, then being constructed, and solicited him to order from appellant the inside blinds and guide strips therefor; and Mr. Burch testifies that after some negotiation appellee gave to him, for appellant, an order for the blinds and guide strips, and that he sent the order to appellant\u2019s factory at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.\nThe appellee denies giving just such an order as Burch claims, and swears he only ordered the guide strips, they to be of specified material, style and finish, and not more than one-half inch wider than the window casings in which they were to be placed, and that he told Mr. Burch that the putting in of the guide strips would naturally lead to the use of the blinds, and it all depended upon what style of guide strips he furnished whether they could use the blinds.\nThe guide strips were sent to appellee by appellant, but when they arrived and were examined by appellee and his architect they were found to be more than one-half inch wider than the casings, and the natural finish and workmanship upon them were not very good, and claimed not to be as represented by Burch, and as contracted for; whereupon appellee telegraphed and wrote appellant as follows:\n\u201c Quincy, Ill., U. S. A., Dec. 23, 97.\nWiller Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wis.\nDear Sirs : I wired you this morning as follows : \u2018Your guide strips here subject to your order; not as represented to me by Mr. Burch in material, finish and style. Cancel order.\u2019 I hereby confirm same. I will say further that while your Mr. Burch was here he represented to me that he was to furnish me with guide strips of extra small size; also that these strips would not extend over half an inch beyond the casing. He also promised the best of material and the very best of finish; these strips which are now here are not in any way, shape or manner such as he represented to furnish. The lumber is poor, machine work poor, colors poor, and the finish poorer; and I would not put them up in my house if you were to give them to me for nothing; the commonest finish in my house is better than the best of the strips you sent. As I wired you this morning the strips are here subject to your order, as I can not use them, and my architect positively refuses -to accept them.\nRespectfully,\nGeo. H. Stahl.\u201d\nAt this time appellant had almost completed the blinds, and he refused to cancel the order, and insisted upon appellee taking and paying for both the guide strips and blinds, but appellee refused to either accept or pay for them.\nThe vital questions in this case are, (1) did appellee order the blinds, and (2) were the guide strips made of the width, material, finish and style as represented by appellant ?\nThe evidence is very conflicting upon both these questions of fact, and the jury had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses on both sides, and observing their demeanor while on the witness stand, and it is within their peculiar province to reconcile the conflict, and ascertain where the truth lies; and in the absence of prejudicial error in the court\u2019s rulings on the admission or rejection of evidence, and in giving and refusing instructions, we must affirm their verdict as settling both these questions of fact, when it comes to us with the approval of the trial judge.\nAfter carefully examining the whole record, we find the Circuit Court committed no prejudicial error in its rulings on the evidence, and the instructions given to the jury, when taken together as one charge, presented the law of the case to the jury as fairly as the rights of appellant required, and those refused were properly refused.\nAs we find no reversible error in this record, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Burroughs,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hamilton & Woods, attorneys for appellant.",
      "L. H. Berger and C. A. Babcock, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Willer, doing Business under the Name of The Willer Mfg. Co., v. George H. Stahl.\n1. Jury\u2014Its Province to Settle Questions of Fact.\u2014A jury, having the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses on both sides and observing their demeanor while on the witness stand, it is within its peculiar province to reconcile conflicts in the testimony and ascertain where the truth lies, and in the absence of prejudicial error in the court\u2019s rulings on the admission or rejection of evidence, and in giving or refusing instructions, the Appellate Court will affirm its verdict as settling questions of fact, especially when it comes before it with the approval of the trial judge.\nAssumpsit, for goods manufactured, etc. Trial in the Circuit Court of Adams County; the Hon. John 0. Broady, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for defendant; appeal by plaintiff. Heard in this court at the May term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 20, 1899.\nHamilton & Woods, attorneys for appellant.\nL. H. Berger and C. A. Babcock, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0498-01",
  "first_page_order": 506,
  "last_page_order": 508
}