Illsley v. Peerless Motor Car Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Illsley v. Peerless Motor Car Co.

195 Ill. App. 572

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 21, 1915

DocketGen. No. 21,006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 Ill. App. 572 (Illsley v. Peerless Motor Car Co.) 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

Illsley v. Peerless Motor Car Co., 195 Ill. App. 572 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Interest, § 56*—how should be computed upon breach of contract. In an action to recover on a contract whereby defendant agreed that plaintiff should have the exclusive right to sell its cars within a named territory, and should have as his compensation an agreed discount on defendant’s listed price for cars sold by plaintiff, and where judgment for plaintiff included the amount of such discount on the price obtained for a car sold by defendant within such territory in breach of the contract, held that interest should be computed on the amount of the discount from the date of such sale. 4. Interest, § 81*—when error exists in computation of interest. In an action to recover on a contract whereby defendant agreed that plaintiff should have the sole right to sell its motor cars within a named district, a judgment for plaintiff of $1,921.83, held excessive to the extent of $63.17.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Interest, § 56*—how should be computed upon breach of contract. In an action to recover on a contract whereby defendant agreed that plaintiff should have the exclusive right to sell its cars within a named territory, and should have as his compensation an agreed discount on defendant’s listed price for cars sold by plaintiff, and where judgment for plaintiff included the amount of such discount on the price obtained for a car sold by defendant within such territory in breach of the contract, held that interest should be computed on the amount of the discount from the date of such sale. 4. Interest, § 81*—when error exists in computation of interest. In an action to recover on a contract whereby defendant agreed that plaintiff should have the sole right to sell its motor cars within a named district, a judgment for plaintiff of $1,921.83, held excessive to the extent of $63.17.

The Parkway Baking Company, Inc. (Plaintiff), National Bakers Services, Inc. (Plaintiff) v. Freihofer Baking Company (Inc.) (Defendant) William Freihofer Baking Company (Additional Defendant), National Bakers Services, Inc . (Additional Defendant), National Bakers Services, Inc., the Parkway Baking Company, Inc. (Plaintiff), National Bakers Services, Inc. (Plaintiff) v. Freihofer Baking Company (Inc.) (Defendant), William Freihofer Baking Company (Additional Defendant), National Bakers Services, Inc . (Additional Defendant), the Parkway Baking Company, Inc.

255 F.2d 641 (Third Circuit, 1958)

Goodman v. Motor Products Corp.

132 N.E.2d 356 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 Ill. App. 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illsley-v-peerless-motor-car-co-illappct-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack