Krumholz v. Tobias

Appellate Court of Illinois

Krumholz v. Tobias

167 Ill. App. 553, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 1312

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 21, 1912

DocketGen. No. 16,218

StatusPublished

This text of 167 Ill. App. 553 (Krumholz v. Tobias) 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

Krumholz v. Tobias, 167 Ill. App. 553, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 1312 (Ill. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

In a suit brought by defendant in error against plaintiff in error in the Municipal Court to recover for labor performed and materials furnished in installing a steam heating plant, under the terms of a written contract entered into between the parties, a trial by the court without a jury resulted in a finding and judgment against plaintiff in error for $682.40, to reverse which judgment he prosecutes this writ of error.

The contract price of the job was $750. During the final installation .of the plant defendant in error was unable to procure the services of union workmen, and at the suggestion of plaintiff in error, Charles Kummerow was employed to finish the work, and entered into a contract with defendant in error to do so for $49. This contract was fully performed. The court found that defendant in error had in good faith complied with the terms of the contract in all material and substantial particulars, and was entitled to recover the contract price less the expense of installing certain radiation.

The doctrine of substantial compliance is too firmly established in this State to be overturned upon the authority of New York decisions to the contrary. Peterson v. Pusey, 237 Ill. 204.

The other questions involved are purely of fact, as to which the evidence is in hopeless conflict. We are unable to say that the finding of the trial court was against the clear preponderance of the evidence, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

In a suit brought by defendant in error against plaintiff in error in the Municipal Court to recover for labor performed and materials furnished in installing a steam heating plant, under the terms of a written contract entered into between the parties, a trial by the court without a jury resulted in a finding and judgment against plaintiff in error for $682.40, to reverse which judgment he prosecutes this writ of error.

The contract price of the job was $750. During the final installation .of the plant defendant in error was unable to procure the services of union workmen, and at the suggestion of plaintiff in error, Charles Kummerow was employed to finish the work, and entered into a contract with defendant in error to do so for $49. This contract was fully performed. The court found that defendant in error had in good faith complied with the terms of the contract in all material and substantial particulars, and was entitled to recover the contract price less the expense of installing certain radiation.

The doctrine of substantial compliance is too firmly established in this State to be overturned upon the authority of New York decisions to the contrary. Peterson v. Pusey, 237 Ill. 204.

The other questions involved are purely of fact, as to which the evidence is in hopeless conflict. We are unable to say that the finding of the trial court was against the clear preponderance of the evidence, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 Ill. App. 553, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krumholz-v-tobias-illappct-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack