Case ID: ill-app_195/html/0290-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Holdom", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

New Idea Arc Light Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. G. C. Renneker Company, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,390.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frank H. Graham, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed November 1, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by New Idea Arc Light Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Gr. C. Renneker Company, a corporation, defendant, for a balance due on goods sold and delivered.
    This action was based upon three written contracts for the sale by plaintiff to defendant of thirteen electric lamps at the price of $15 each, payable in instalments. The lamps were installed and $24 paid on the total purchase price of $195. Defendant contended that the lamps did not perform the work for which they were bought, and counterclaimed against plaintiff’s claim the $24 it had paid on account. The trial court found the issues for the defendant on the counterclaim and gave judgment in its favor for $24, and plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error in an effort to reverse the judgment.
    There was evidence that the plaintiff was a manufacturer of the lamps contracted to be sold to defendant; that defendant operated printing presses which caused considerable vibration, and that the lamps which defendant was using were often broken by reason of the vibration; that it was represented to defendant at the time of the sale that plaintiff’s “New Idea” lamps would withstand the vibration without breaking; that the lamps sold were to take the place of the ones then in use, which were discarded and the “New Idea” lamps installed! in their stead; that the “New Idea” lamps did not fulfil the purpose for which they were bought and which plaintiff knew they were intended to serve; that the new lamps did not withstand the vibration caused by the running of the presses, but constantly broke so that they could not be used successfully to light the presses.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Evidence, § 360
      
      —when parol evidence admissible to show relation of parties to contract to each other. In an action on a written contract, evidence of the relation of the parties to each other when the contract was made is admissible to enable the court to construe the contract in that light.
    2. Sales, § 282
      
      —when evidence sufficient to show breach of implied warranty. Evidence in action for purchase price of goods, examined and held to show breach of implied warranty as to suitability of goods for use for which purchased.
    3. Sales, § 252
      
      —when warranty of suitability of goods implied. When a manufacturer of articles sells them for a specific use, there is an implied warranty on bis part that they are reasonably fit for such use.
    Defendant offered to return the lamps and demanded that the instalment of $24 paid to plaintiff be returned to it. Plaintiff refused either to pay the $24 or receive back the lamps, and defendant thereupon put the lamps in storage and notified plaintiff of that fact.
    Leon A. Berezniak and H. L. Cavender, for plaintiff in error; H. L. Cavender, of counsel.
    Frank B. Murray, for defendant in error; O. A. Arnston, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.