Legal Opinion

Harlev v. Sanitary District of Chicago

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided January 26, 1903PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Assumpsit.—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Axel Chytraus, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1902.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Windes

The principal and controlling question in this case is as to whether the appellee, by its proceedings looking to a forfeiture of the contract between it and Harlev, set out in the statement, was^ justified. If the contract was rightfully forfeited, then there is no right of recovery shown, and the learned trial judge committed no error in directing a verdict for appellee. FTo contention is made on behalf of appellee but that a prima facie case for appellant is shown by the evidence, except upon the theory that appellant had not complied with his contract as to the rate of progress of his work…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Offutt v. World's Columbian ExpositionIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Bartelott v. International BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Packer v. RobertsIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Pennsylvania Railroad v. ReichertCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1882
  5. St. Louis National Stock Yards v. GodfreyIllinois Supreme Court · 1902

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Citerella v. United Illuminating Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1969
  2. Sanitary District of Chicago v. McMahon & Montgomery Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1903
  3. Saballus v. TimkeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1983
  4. Norris v. Elmdale Elevator Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Griffiths v. Sanitary DistrictAppellate Court of Illinois · 1912

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API