Case ID: ill-app_191/html/0609-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Augustus D. Juilliard et al., Defendants in Error, v. Jacob Friedman, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,147.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    . Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Sales, § 344
      
      —what is measure of damages where purchaser refuses to accept goods. Where the purchaser of goods refuses to accept the same and the goods are permanently retained hy the seller or resold hy him, in an action against the purchaser the measure of damages is not the full contract price, hut the excess, if any, of the contract price over the market price of the goods at the time and place of the delivery to the defendant.
    2. Evidence, § 58*—when evidence of private custom inadmissible. In an action by the sellers of goods against the purchaser who refused to accept same, claiming that he had never ordered the goods, evidence of a private custom of plaintiffs unknown to defendant, as to their method of sending out bills for goods sold, held erroneously admitted.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Gtjllivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed March 11, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Augustus D. Juilliard and others against Jacob Friedman to recover for the contract price of silk alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendant, and which defendant denied having ordered. Judgment in a prior trial was reversed in 174 111. App. 259. Upon the second trial plaintiff again recovered judgment, from which defendant brings error.
    Julius Heldman and Simon La Grou, for plaintiff in error.
    Edward J. Queeny and William J. Lacey, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.