Case ID: ill-app_185/html/0068-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Thompson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company, Appellant, v. Horace M. Tallman, Appellee.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Shelby county; the Hon James C. McBride, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the April term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 27, 1913.
    Rehearing denied.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company against Horace M. Tallman to recover the balance oí an alleged purchase price of certain notes executed by J. W. Henderson, Jr., to plaintiff, the notes being secured by chattel mortgages. Plaintiff claims that defendant agreed to pay a certain sum for the notes and mortgages. After defendant refused to accept a tender of them they were foreclosed by plaintiff, and the balance sued for is the difference between the contract price and the proceeds of the foreclosure sale. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Sales, I 329
      
      -—when evidence insufficient to establish sale of notes and mortgages. In an action to recover the purchase price of certain notes secured by chattel mortgages, the evidence being conflicting whether defendant agreed to purchase them, held that a verdict for defendant was sustained by the evidence.
    2. Appeal and erbob, § 1514
      
      —when remarlos of counsel not based on excluded evidence. Argument of counsel to the jury concerning the anxiety of an agent of plaintiff to induce defendant to purchase notes, held not a comment on excluded evidence concerning same but based on the acts of the agent and the inferences legitimately deduced therefrom.
    3. Appeal and ebbob, § 1537
      
      —when giving of duplicate instructions not reversible error. Giving of an instruction stating an abstract proposition of law and another instruction which is a concrete application of the law stated in the abstract instruction, held not reversible error, though the abstract instruction should not have been given.
    Chapee & Chew and George B. Rhoads, for appellant.
    E. A. Richardson and U. G. Ward, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.