Case ID: ill-app_192/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Gridley", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. B. Brumbaugh, Defendant in Error, v. Emma M. Candler, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,570.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Percy L. Persons, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 13, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by B. B. Brumbaugh against Emma M. Candler on a check for six hundred and fifty dollars and on an account stated for one hundred dollars. In response to an advertisement by the plaintiff in a newspaper that he was selling out the contents of a furnished house, the defendant called at the house and selected certain pieces of furniture which were delivered to the defendant who gave plaintiff her check, payment of which was subsequently stopped, and promised to pay one hundred dollars additional. The defendant claimed that she had been deceived as to the character of the goods inasmuch as they were not permanent furnishings of a residence but were replaced from time to time by new goods as sales were made.
    The evidence showed that notwithstanding the misleading character of the advertisement, the defendant knew the kind and quality of the goods purchased, that the furniture was in fact new and was not the used furniture of a “fashionable house.” From a judgment against defendant for seven hundred and fifty dollars, she brings error.
    McEwen, Weissenbach, Shrimski & Meloan, for plaintiff in error.
    MoInerney, Power & Byrnes, for defendant in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    Sales, § 411
      
      —when misleading advertisement not available. Where as a result of a misleading advertisement of goods for sale the defendant subsequently makes a purchase after being informed of the true character of such goods and circumstances surrounding the sale, the contention that the advertisement was calculated to deceive will not avail as a defense, the goods being actually worth the price paid for them.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.