From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gottlieb v. Aridor Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Jan 8, 1945
324 Ill. App. 587 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)

Opinion

Gen. No. 43,225. (Abstract of Decision.)

Opinion filed January 8, 1945 Released for publication January 29, 1945

EVIDENCE, § 206parol evidence as to basis of payment for work done by plaintiffs on written order given by defendant. Where plaintiffs made certain die punches for defendant under written order prepared by defendant on its printed form and sent to plaintiffs, held that plaintiffs were entitled to recover on basis of time actually spent on work, although defendant sought to show by parol testimony that number of hours to be charged was limited by oral agreement to 20 hours per punch, as written order was prepared by defendant and evidently was intended to contain all terms of agreement and mere estimate of time that would probably be expended on each punch could not control express provision of contract to pay upon time and material basis.

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. CHARLES S. DOUGHERTY, Judge, presiding. Affirmed.

Heard in the first division, first district, this court at the October term, 1944.

Taylor, Miller, Busch Boyden, for appellant;

Charles R. Sprowl and Paul Oberndorf, of counsel.

Mclnerney, Epstein Arvey, for appellees;

Louis M. Mantynband, George L. Siegel and Melvin A. Garretson, of counsel.


Not to be published in full. Opinion filed January 8, 1945; released for publication January 29, 1945.


Summaries of

Gottlieb v. Aridor Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Jan 8, 1945
324 Ill. App. 587 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)
Case details for

Gottlieb v. Aridor Co.

Case Details

Full title:David Gottlieb et al., Trading as D. Gottlieb and Company, Appellees, v…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Date published: Jan 8, 1945

Citations

324 Ill. App. 587 (Ill. App. Ct. 1945)
59 N.E.2d 743

Citing Cases

Schrieffer's Motor Service v. United Freight Forwarders

The testimony further indicated that, as the terms "receiving charge" and "pick-up charge" are generally…