{
  "id": 5309567,
  "name": "Maurice Dwyer v. James Duquid et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dwyer v. Duquid",
  "decision_date": "1873-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "308",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. 307"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5245222
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/26/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2606286
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/50/0290-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 3158,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0176595025653723e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7450121609406571
    },
    "sha256": "146b7421d2fb2a0769631cb17d5451f18446feeeec62f45b080aa13f29b15120",
    "simhash": "1:5c813552b07e30ed",
    "word_count": 546
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:48:52.595776+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Maurice Dwyer v. James Duquid et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court :\nBy the terms of the contract between the parties in this case, nothing was said about the time when payment was to be made. In such cases, the law implies that payment is to be made on delivery of the property. Smith v. Gillett, 50 Ill. 290; Metz v. Albrecht, 52 id. 492. If, therefore, appellant refused to pay for the coal after delivery, and when payment was demanded by appellees, he was in default, and if appellees, prior to appellant\u2019s default, had complied with their part of the contract, they were authorized to treat the contract as abandoned, and might recover in assumpsit, on the common counts, for the amount of coal they had delivered, according to the contract price. Evans v. Chicago and Rock Island Railroad Company, 26 Ill. 189.\nThe principal controversy turns on the preponderance of evidence, and, as is quite frequent in such cases, each party asserts, with great apparent confidence, that the preponderance is with him. After carefully examining the evidence in the record, we are not disposed to disturb the finding of the court below. The evidence is conflicting, and so nearly balanced that we do not think the ends of justice require that we should remand the case for a new trial.\nThe judgment of the court below is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. T. A. Moran, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Nicholes, McKindley & Morrison, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Maurice Dwyer v. James Duquid et al.\n1. Sale\u2014time of payment. In a sale of property, where nothing is said as to when payment shall be made, the law implies that it shall be made on delivery.\n2. Action\u2014to recover price of goods on partial delivery. Where personal property is sold and delivered, there being no time fixed for payment, and the purchaser refuses to pay for the same on demand, he will be in default, and the vendor, having complied with his part of the contract, may treat the contract as abandoned, and recover in assumpsit, under the common counts, for the price of the property delivered, according to the contract.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas H. Tipton, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought by James Duquid and James Crichton against Maurice Dwyer, for the price of \u25a0coal sold and delivered under the following special contract:\n\u201cChicago, July 9, 1872.\nTerms of contract between Mr. Dwyer and Duquid & Oriehton:\nWe will commence to deliver to Mr. Dwyer, Lackawana coal at $7.50 per ton, in yard, and if coal advances, Mr. Dwyer to have one-half the advance, and we the other half, with the promise that Mr. Dwyer fills all orders before any or each advance, at the figures paid before the advance; also to supply Mr. Dwyer with all the coal he desires, to supply his trade, until May 1st, 1873.\nDuquid & Crichton.\u201d\nThe case was tried by the court without a jury. The amount of coal delivered' was not disputed, but the defense was, that the plaintiffs had violated their agreement by not delivering the defendant more coal, for which damages were claimed. The court below found for the plaintiffs, for $424.86, which was $283 less than the sum claimed.\nMr. T. A. Moran, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Nicholes, McKindley & Morrison, for the appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 307,
  "last_page_order": 308
}