{ "id": 5286951, "name": "The Almini Company v. Charles H. King", "name_abbreviation": "Almini Co. v. King", "decision_date": "1900-12-04", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "276", "last_page": "278", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "92 Ill. App. 276" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "80 Ill. App. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5786221 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/80/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 Ill. 210", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 837681 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/154/0210-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 Ill. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5471145 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/150/0546-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 254, "char_count": 4360, "ocr_confidence": 0.566, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.43507420702905847 }, "sha256": "e4efd539f3895a02d28bc566f0c4b90f74cd91b901ca88a8c9df16ea4fc44609", "simhash": "1:b70f3cf3dc9512c8", "word_count": 755 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:47:26.957327+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The Almini Company v. Charles H. King." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mu. Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant in error sued to recover damages for the failure of plaintiff in error to comply with the terms of an alleged contract in writing, by which it is said to have agreed to do the painting and glazing upon a house in process of construction. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant in error, from which an appeal was prayed, which was dismissed for want of a complete record. The cause now comes up on a writ of error.\nPlaintiff in error submitted to the architect an estimate of the \u201c cost of painting, varnishing, etc.,\u201d according to the plans and specifications, which estimate was in the nature of a bid. Subsequently a contract was signed at the office of the architect, which provided not only for the painting, but in addition thereto for glazing, \u201c according to the plans and specifications, scale and detailed drawings, which are herein made a part and illustrative of this contract.\u201d When it was discovered that the contract, as signed, called for glazing in addition to the \u201c painting, varnishing, etc.,\u201d for which only the estimate had been made, and that defendant in error required the glass to be furnished and set in addition to the painting, and at the price for which plaintiff in error had contemplated doing the painting alone,, notice was served upon the architect that the terms of the contract in that respect would not be complied with. It is not disputed that the estimate submitted did not include the glazing, and it is quite apparent that plaintiff in error did not intend to contract to do it at the price named. The contract was offered in evidence. It states that the plans and specifications, to which it refers, are \u201c herein made a part \u201d of it. They are not, however, attached to the instrument, nor is there anything in the contract to locate or identify them in any way. The contract, therefore, as offered, and upon which defendant in error bases his claim to recover, is incomplete. ' The original specifications, as prepared, were introduced, but there is no evidence that they were ever seen by the Almini Company or its agents, either before or at the time the contract was signed, or that they ever were in any way attached to or made a part of or identified in the contract, and there is evidence to the contrary. The incomplete contract was not admissible in evidence, and the objection thereto should have been sustained.\nWe do not understand the statement made in the brief of defendant in error that this point \u201c was not even suggested to the trial court.\u201d Objection was made to the introduction of the contract, which objection appears both in the abstract and in the corresponding page of the record. Exception was duly taken when the objection was overruled by the court below.\nThe bill of exceptions was clearly filed in proper time, as a simple computation shows. The stipulation that the original bill of exceptions should be used in \u201c making up the record for appeal \u201d and no copy need be made \u201c to be\ninserted in such record,\u201d manifestly meant \u201c transcript of record,\u201d and not the record itself. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Hessions, 150 Ill. 546; Daube v. Tennison, 154 Ill. 210; Am. Vault, Safe & Lock Co. v. Springer, 80 Ill. App. 231. The judgment of the County Court is reversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mu. Justice Freeman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Geo. \"W. Wilbur, attorney for plaintiff in error.", "John B. Bradt, attorney for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The Almini Company v. Charles H. King.\n1. Evidence\u2014Incomplete Contracts Inadmissible.\u2014A contract which refers to \u201cplans and specifications\u201d as \u201cherein made a part\u201d of the contract, but which are not attached to it, and which contain nothing to locate or identify them in any way, is incomplete and not admissible in evidence.\n2. Practice\u2014Construction of a Stipulation that the Original Bill of Exceptions May Be Used in Making Up the Record for an Appeal.\u2014 A stipulation that the original bill of exceptions may be used \u201c in making up the record for an appeal,\u201d and no copy need be made \u201cto be inserted in such record,\u201d manifestly means \u201c transcript of the record,\u201d and not the record itself.\nAssumpsit, for damages for a failure to comply with the terms of a contract. Error to the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. H. W. Johnson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1899.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed December 4, 1900.\nGeo. \"W. Wilbur, attorney for plaintiff in error.\nJohn B. Bradt, attorney for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0276-01", "first_page_order": 300, "last_page_order": 302 }