{
  "id": 3148317,
  "name": "Henry Lindeman v. Frank L. Fry et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lindeman v. Fry",
  "decision_date": "1899-02-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "174",
  "last_page": "175",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 Ill. 174"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "77 Ill. App. 89",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5221060
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/77/0089-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 3470,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08891425716325546
    },
    "sha256": "4b4bcf1ddf061ce183503278f2329ea3fdc2cceb86542bfcd2bfe34069a4c38e",
    "simhash": "1:f4ebd748b82e6152",
    "word_count": 564
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:37.829946+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Lindeman v. Frank L. Fry et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Phillips\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nBy his brief appellant presents but three points: that the verdict is contrary to the evidence; that it is excessive; and that there was error in refusing to give the fourth instruction asked by appellant.\nAppellees, who are architects and partners, brought assumpsit against the appellant, by whom they were employed to prepare plans and specifications for and superintend the erection of a building. There is no denial of the rendition of services, but it is denied that there was proper supervision, and it is insisted that many things which were to have been put in the building were omitted and different material was used, and it is claimed that appellant might recoup, etc. This question, and that presented claiming the damages are excessive, are questions of fact conclusively determined by the judgment of the Appellate Court.\nThe refusal of the court to give the following instruction is assigned as error:\n\u201cThe jury are instructed that if they believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff in this case did not use reasonable care and diligence in the performance of his work as an architect, and the buildings of defendant were not properly constructed, then the defendant may recoup or set oft the damages he may sustain on that account; and if, from the evidence, the jury find the damages sustained are equal to or greater than the amount plaintiff might claim for services, then the jury should find for the defendant.\u201d\nOn this question the Appellate Court held the instruction properly refused, saying: \u201cIf the jury had found that the buildings were improperly constructed, and that the plaintiffs had not exercised reasonable care and diligence, then, under the instruction, they must have found for the appellant, even though they believed that the improper construction was not the fault of appellees. The instruction is erroneous in another respect. Appellees\u2019 evidence showed that the carpenter\u2019s and painter\u2019s work was not complete, and that the appellant accepted the work with knowledge of its incompleteness. This evidence the court is, by instruction, asked to ignore and in effect to exclude it from the jury.\u201d\nWe concur in that view', and the judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District is affirmed.\ntJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Phillips"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Barker & Church, for appellant.",
      "Smith, Shedd, Underwood & Hall, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Lindeman v. Frank L. Fry et al.\nOpinion filed February 17, 1899.\n1. Instructions\u2014when instruction on recoupment is properly refused. In a suit by an architect for plans and supervision of a building, an instruction is properly refused which allows the defendant the right of recoupment if the building was not properly constructed, irrespective of whether plaintiff was at fault, and which ignores the issue that defendant accepted the building knowing it had not been completed.\n2. Appeals and errors\u2014whether verdict is excessive or against evidence are questions of fact. Whether defendant to a suit by an architect for plans and supervision is entitled, under the evidence, to recoupment by way of damages for the plaintiff\u2019s negligent performance of his work, and whether the verdict is excessive, are questions of fact settled in the Appellate Court.\nLindeman v. Fry, 77 Ill. App. 89, affirmed.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nBarker & Church, for appellant.\nSmith, Shedd, Underwood & Hall, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0174-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 175
}