M. Hommel Wine Co. v. Netter
Appellate Court of Illinois
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley
delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no dispute as to the quantity of the wine received by defendant or as to the total purchase price thereof. Ño point is made as to the verdict being excessive in amount on the ground that interest on said purchase price was included in the verdict. The main contention of counsel for defendant is that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of plaintiff in any amount.
After due consideration of all the evidence we are of the opinion that the court’s action in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fred W. Wolf Co. v. Monarch Refrigerating Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1911
- America Theatre Co. v. Siegel, Cooper & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1906
- Eureka Cast Steel Co. v. FrogAppellate Court of Illinois · 1887
- Rhea Thielens Implement Co. v. Racine Malleable & Wrought Iron Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1900
- Barker v. TurnbullAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Foley & Co. v. Excelsior Stove & Manufacturing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1932
- C. A. Watson & Sons v. American Paper Products Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1923