Woodworth v. Woodburn
Illinois Supreme Court
This declaration was in assumpsit, on three promissory notes and common counts, in the Kane Circuit Court. First plea, general issue ; second plea, set-off; third plea, special warranty; fourth plea, part failure of consideration. General replication to each of said pleas. There was a change of venue to Kendall county. Jury sworn at October term, 1857, of Kendall Circuit Court. Verdict for plaintiff, $1,700. Hollister, Judge, presiding. Motion for new trial overruled.
Read the full summary
This declaration was in assumpsit, on three promissory notes and common counts, in the Kane Circuit Court. First plea, general issue ; second plea, set-off; third plea, special warranty; fourth plea, part failure of consideration. General replication to each of said pleas. There was a change of venue to Kendall county. Jury sworn at October term, 1857, of Kendall Circuit Court. Verdict for plaintiff, $1,700. Hollister, Judge, presiding. Motion for new trial overruled. The facts connected with the points decided are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
This was an action upon promissory notes, given for spokes and hubs, sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants. The defense was a part failure of the consideration, on account of a breach of a warranty of the quality of the spokes and- hubs. There was evidence tending strongly to show that the articles were warranted to be well seasoned and fit for immediate use. To prove that they were not well seasoned and fit for immediate use, the defendants asked of a witness the following questions: “ Did yon ever put up any wheels from these spokes and hubs ? If yea, how did they stand ? and if they…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Budlong v. CunninghamAppellate Court of Illinois · 1882
- Wynn v. LongleyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889
- Miller v. AldrichAppellate Court of Illinois · 1905
- Schleuter v. Sherman Bros. & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1912