Flug v. Craft Manufacturing Co.
Appellate Court of Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Presiding Justice Schwartz
delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff Plug sued to recover for work done and tools and dies made and delivered to Craft in the period from March to September 1951. Craft admits that all the items were ordered and the work done, but it counterclaims for damages in the amount of $130,000, principally loss of profits because of the failure of Flug to correctly make and deliver on time two progressive dies included as a part of Flug’s claim. A progressive die is one which by a continuous operation stamps out a product from raw material. In other words, it…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Howard v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. CassidyIllinois Supreme Court · 1916
- Larson v. JohnsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1954
- Carroll-Porter Boiler & Tank Co. v. Columbus Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Adams v. J. I. Case Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1970
- Evra Corp. v. Swiss Bank Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Rivenbark v. Finis P. Ernest, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1976
- Scheinfeld v. Muntz TV, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1966
- Kalal v. Goldblatt Brothers, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.