Case ID: ill-app_189/html/0344-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. C. Foster, Appellant, v. D. Swanson, trading as D. Swanson & Company, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 19,924.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Building and construction contracts, § 33
      
      —what constitutes acceptance. "Where the evidence tends to show that work on a building was done in a good and workmanlike manner, that •the prices charged were the usual and customary prices for such work, that the owner saw the work while in progress, making no objections but expressing himself as satisfied, and made several .payments after moving into the building and did not make any complaint until several months had elapsed, the Appellate Court will not disturb a finding in favor of the defendant for a balance due for work done, in an action by the owner to recover damages for poor work and alleged overcharges.
    
      - Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. David Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 13, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    W. C. Foster employed D. Swanson, trading as D. Swanson & Company, to make repairs on his flat building. As the work progressed and after it was completed Swanson was paid certain amounts. Later plaintiff, claiming to be dissatisfied with the work, refused to pay the balance claimed to be" due; and brought action for damages for poor work and alleged overcharges against D. Swanson, who filed an affidavit of merits and-also a claim for the balance said to be due for the work. The jury disallowed plaintiff’s claim and a judgment was entered on a verdict for defendant in the full amount of his claim. Plaintiff appeals.
    Frank D. Fulton, for appellant; Eugene L. Garey and Archie J. Deutschman, of counsel.
    Wiley & Mack, for appellee; Hoyne, O’Connor & Irwin and Carl J. Appell, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 1411 —when verdict will not he disturbed. Where conflicting testimony is properly submitted to the jury, the Appellate Court will not disturb its verdict simply because greater credence and weight was given to the evidence in favor of one party than that in favor of the other.