Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0496-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Estate of Max M. Hesser, Deceased. Claim of Charles Hueglin et al., Appellees, v. Estate of Max M. Hesser, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 21,953.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Contracts, § 387
      
      —when evidence is sufficient to show "breach of contract for manufacturing invented article. Evidence held sufficient to sustain finding that deceased’s partner and his executrix refused to perform a contract between the deceased and claimants for the manufacture by claimants of certain forms invented by the deceased, and that the negotiations between the deceased’s partner, his executrix and one of the claimants immediately following the deceased’s death were for the sole purpose of reducing or avoiding claimants’ damages on account of such refusal.
    2. Damases, § 190*—when evidence is sufficient to sustain verdict. Evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding of $1,500 damages for breach of contract.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Coók county; the Hon. John P. McGoobty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 9, 1917.
    
      Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
    Statement of the Case.
    Claim by Charles Hueglin and others, claimants, against the estate of Max M. Hesser, deceased, for the manufacture by claimants of a certain wire form for holding clothes lines. From a judgment for claimants for $1,500, the administratrix of the estate appeals.
    Zeisler, Friedman & Zeisler, for appellant.
    Walter H. Eckert, for appellees.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.