Case ID: ill-app_186/html/0235-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Western Bottle Manufacturing Company, Appellee, v. William V. Dufner, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 5,868.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Nicholas E. Worthington, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 15, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Western Bottle Manufacturing Company, a corporation, against William V. Dufner to recover the purchase price of certain bottles. The defense interposed'. was that the bottles were not lettered as ordered. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff for $43.52, and from the judgment defendant appeals.
    The errors assigned and argued all go in effect to the claim that the verdict is not supported by the law and the evidence, and that the court erred in admitting the testimony of an expert witness.
    Clarence W. Heyl, for appellant.
    Kirk & Shurtleff, for appellee.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Sales, § 156
      
      —when buyer bound to pay for goods by partial acceptance. In an action for the purchase price of bottles, a defense was interposed that the bottles were not lettered as ordered. There was a conflict in the evidence on that question and the defense was met by evidence, though disputed, that defendant accepted a part of the bottles. The court ruled the law to be that defendant was bound to pay for the whole shipment if it accepted a part. Held that ruling was a correct statement of the law.
    2. Evidence, § 424
      
      —when expert evidence as to typewriting admissible. In an action for the purchase price of bottles, where there was a question whether defendant accepted a part of the bottles, and such .acceptance depended upon whether a postscript on a letter written by defendant was a forgery, held that the admission of the testimony of a witness familiar with typewriting, to the effect that the postscript was written by the same machine with which the body of the letter was written, was not improper^
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney

delivered the opinion of the court.