{
  "id": 5287002,
  "name": "George B. Ransom v. Alfred Glossop",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ransom v. Glossop",
  "decision_date": "1900-12-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "476",
  "last_page": "477",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "92 Ill. App. 476"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1944,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3053973416982998
    },
    "sha256": "fb2da2c8aeb7e4e56f0a5152e0d2cb4826a315df2dcf24189aa946f3627384a2",
    "simhash": "1:06ea4c7bfcdd7b92",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:47:26.957327+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George B. Ransom v. Alfred Glossop."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hr. Presiding Justice Harker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant began suit before a justice of the peace against appellee and his farm tenant, one Edward Gillham, to recover damages for breach of an alleged contract for the sale of a lot of corn. The case went to the Circuit Court on appeal and, after being dismissed as to Gillham, was tried by a jury. The court directed a verdict for the defendant, upon which judgment for costs was rendered against the plaintiff.\nThe evidence shows that Gillham raised the corn in question upon appellee\u2019s farm. - Appellee seemed anxious for him to sell it in order that he might collect his rent, and advised appellant to buy it. Appellant\u2019s son, as agent for his father, made a contract with Gillham for the purchase of the corn. There was no sort of delivery of the corn made at the time, and no payment was made. When appellant\u2019s son subsequently went to the cribs for the purpose of measuring the corn, he found that appellee had levied a distress warrant upon it for rent, and Gillham refused to all ow him to take any of it.\nIt is clear under the facts that the title to the corn never passed to appellant. If appellant is entitled to damages for breach of contract, he can not recover them in a suit against appellee because appellee was not a party to the contract. The Circuit Court properly directed a verdict, therefore, and the judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hr. Presiding Justice Harker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith & Hairgrove, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Charles A. Barnes and James O. Priest, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George B. Ransom v. Alfred Glossop.\n1. Damages\u2014No Recovery for a Breach of a Contract by Person Not a Party.\u2014A person can not recover damages for the breach of a contract to which he is not a party.\nAssumpsit, for the breach of a contract. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Morgan County; the Hon. Robert B. Shirley, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1900,\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 7, 1900.\nSmith & Hairgrove, attorneys for appellant.\nCharles A. Barnes and James O. Priest, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0476-01",
  "first_page_order": 500,
  "last_page_order": 501
}