Schoenfeldt v. Reineck

Appellate Court of Illinois

Schoenfeldt v. Reineck

159 Ill. App. 96, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 27

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 2, 1910

DocketGen. No. 15,215

StatusPublished

This text of 159 Ill. App. 96 (Schoenfeldt v. Reineck) 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

Schoenfeldt v. Reineck, 159 Ill. App. 96, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 27 (Ill. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Mack

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff sued for $75 on an alleged agreement to pay for extras. Defendant denied the agreement and counterclaimed for $22.94 for groceries supplied. A jury was waived; and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant for $22.94 on findings by the court.

No question is raised as to the counterclaim.

Plaintiff was architect and contractor. He was paid in full the contract price for a small building. In digging for the foundation it was found that a neighbor’s house projected on defendant’s ground which plaintiff claimed necessitated a change in the plans; that he told defendant this would cost $75 of which he would stand $25 if the defendant would pay $50 and that defendant agreed. Defendant claims that he never so agreed bnt told plaintiff he could have the damages which plaintiff said could be gotten from the neighbor.

While plaintiff is supported by two and defendant by only one witness, we cannot say that the evidence so clearly preponderates in plaintiff’s favor as to justify a reversal.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Mack

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff sued for $75 on an alleged agreement to pay for extras. Defendant denied the agreement and counterclaimed for $22.94 for groceries supplied. A jury was waived; and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant for $22.94 on findings by the court.

No question is raised as to the counterclaim.

Plaintiff was architect and contractor. He was paid in full the contract price for a small building. In digging for the foundation it was found that a neighbor’s house projected on defendant’s ground which plaintiff claimed necessitated a change in the plans; that he told defendant this would cost $75 of which he would stand $25 if the defendant would pay $50 and that defendant agreed. Defendant claims that he never so agreed bnt told plaintiff he could have the damages which plaintiff said could be gotten from the neighbor.

While plaintiff is supported by two and defendant by only one witness, we cannot say that the evidence so clearly preponderates in plaintiff’s favor as to justify a reversal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 Ill. App. 96, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoenfeldt-v-reineck-illappct-1910.