Biossat v. Lippincott

Appellate Court of Illinois

Biossat v. Lippincott

204 Ill. App. 283

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 12, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,682

StatusPublished

This text of 204 Ill. App. 283 (Biossat v. Lippincott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Biossat v. Lippincott, 204 Ill. App. 283 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Building and construction contracts, § 103*—when evidence is sufficient to show that plat indicating repairs is basis of contract. Evidence held sufficient to show that a certain plat indicating what repairs were to be made upon defendant’s property by the plaintiff’s assignor was the basis of the contract sued on, in an action to recover the agreed price for the making of certain repairs on said property. 2. Building and construction contracts, § 83*—what is condition precedent to recovery on contract. Where an action was brought upon a building contract for an agreed sum for work to be done and not upon a quantum meruit, held, that there could be no recovery unless substantial compliance with the contract was shown.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Building and construction contracts, § 103*—when evidence is sufficient to show that plat indicating repairs is basis of contract. Evidence held sufficient to show that a certain plat indicating what repairs were to be made upon defendant’s property by the plaintiff’s assignor was the basis of the contract sued on, in an action to recover the agreed price for the making of certain repairs on said property. 2. Building and construction contracts, § 83*—what is condition precedent to recovery on contract. Where an action was brought upon a building contract for an agreed sum for work to be done and not upon a quantum meruit, held, that there could be no recovery unless substantial compliance with the contract was shown.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 Ill. App. 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biossat-v-lippincott-illappct-1917.