Rothschild Bros. v. Wise
Appellate Court of Illinois
Assumpsit, for goods sold. Trial in the County Court of Bond County, the Hon. Joseph Story, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for defendant; appeal by plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Worthington
It will be seen from this statement that Eothschild, the salesman, and Wise, the acting purchaser, are the only two persons who know of their own knowledge, what hats were bought. Eothschild testifies that the hats shipped were of the same kind and quality as the samples shown. Wise, the purchaser, testifies that the hats sent out of thirteen “dots ” were not. That the hats from these thirteen “ lots ” were of the vintage of 1895, while he bought hats for the market of 1896.
The jury believed Wise, and found for appellee. We see no reason for interfering with their finding upon this issue.
Appel…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Young & Conant Manufacturing Co. v. WakefieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- McDaniels v. WhitneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Telford v. AlbroAppellate Court of Illinois · 1895
3Cited by6 opinions
- Candalaus Chicago, Inc. v. Evans Mill Supply Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1977
- Waukesha Canning Co. v. Henry Horner & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1908
- Slayden-Kirksey Woolen Mills v. SpringAppellate Court of Illinois · 1904
- Spring v. MillsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1903
- Citizens Bank v. Adam Schillo Lumber Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.