{
  "id": 5272338,
  "name": "Kingsville Preserving Co. v. August Frank et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kingsville Preserving Co. v. Frank",
  "decision_date": "1900-02-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "586",
  "last_page": "588",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 Ill. App. 586"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill. App. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5257341
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/83/0543-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3369,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.560528552424724e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5254012878743124
    },
    "sha256": "e60ff5883fbeeca69cdf8515f91a6d41c736597fe5c027c3c08a8874f9ac85ad",
    "simhash": "1:39428b84f463a3f8",
    "word_count": 577
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:28.737909+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kingsville Preserving Co. v. August Frank et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the cohrt.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellant against the appellees to recover a balance of $211.50, claimed under a contract for the sale of canned fruits by appellant to appellees.\nAt the close of the evidence the court, upon the motion of the appellees, instructed the jury to return a verdict finding the issues for the defendants (appellees), which was accordingly done, and thereupon the court rendered judgment on the verdict and against the plaintiff (appellant) for costs.\nThe verdict was apparently directed upon the theory that an accord and satisfaction of the claim had occurred as a conclusion of law under the facts of the case\u2014there being upon the record no other accounting for the instruction.\nThere can not be any doubt, from the evidence, but that a balance of $211.50 in excess of the $272.55 that was sent by appellees and received by the appellant, was claimed to be due to the appellant at the time of the remittance and receipt referred to, nor but that appellees knew that such amount was claimed by appellant.\nUnder such circumstances the appellees sent the following letter to appellant:\n\u201c Chicago, May 8,1893.\nKingsville Preserving Co., Kingsville, Ontario, Canada.\nGents: We have this day mailed to City Savings Bank,\nDetroit, per instructions from you, our check for $272.55, in payment for corn, as follows:\n400 doz. Boy Brand at 69c............. $276 00\nLess 5 doz. samples cut................ 3 45\n$272 55\nfor which please send receipt in full.\nTours, etc.,\nFrank Bros.,\nHP\nThe amount so remitted was retained by the appellant.\nThe question then is, was there an accord and satisfaction, as a conclusion of law, under such a condition of facts ? The doctrine of accord and satisfaction was treated of by us at considerable length in Lang v. Lane, 83 Ill. App. 543, and we refer to the opinion in that case for the law applicable to this one upon that subject. It need not be repeated.\nUnder the doctrine there laid down, it is plain that the letter above quoted did not make the acceptance of the sum remitted so plain a condition as that the acceptance of the amount would involve the acceptance of the condition; and therefore the retention of the money by appellant did not bind it as by an accord and satisfaction.\nIt was error for the Circuit Court to direct the jury to find the issues for the defendant, and the judgment will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded for another trial. Reversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilber, Eldridge & Alden, attorneys for appellant.",
      "No appearance by appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kingsville Preserving Co. v. August Frank et al.\n1. Accobd and Satisfaction \u2014 Requisites of.\u2014 To constitute an accord and satisfaction of a claim unliquidated and in dispute, it is necessary that the money should be offered in satisfaction of the claim, and the offer accompanied with such acts find declarations as amount to a condition that if the money is accepted it is to be in satisfaction, and such that the party to whom it is offered is bound to understand therefrom that if he takes it he takes it subject to such condition.\nAssumpsit, for goods sold. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John C. Garver, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1899.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed February 13, 1900.\nWilber, Eldridge & Alden, attorneys for appellant.\nNo appearance by appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0586-01",
  "first_page_order": 592,
  "last_page_order": 594
}