Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0399-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Thomson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. L. Hartwell, trading as C. L. Hartwell & Company, Appellee, v. Crane & Macmahon, Inc., trading as Virginia & North Carolina Wheel Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,190. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Sales, § 18
      
      -—when counter proposition deemed accepted. Where one who receives an offer of goods of a certain description at a certain price replies with a counter proposition, and in reply thereto the offerer advises the former that he has concluded to ship the goods as per its first letter and ships the goods, billing them at the price named in the counter proposition, not at that contained in the original offer, he must be deemed to have accepted the counter proposition, and the terms of the contract between the parties is fixed by the terms of the counter proposition and the letter accepting it.
    2. Sales, § 114*—when contract for sale of lumber not complied with by seller. In an attachment to recover for lumber sold and delivered, evidence examined and held to show that plaintiff failed to comply with the specifications of the contract as to the dimensions of the lumber.
    
      Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John Stelk, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
    Reversed.
    Opinion filed January 30, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Attachment by C. L. Hartwell, trading as C. L. Hartwell & Company, plaintiff, against Crane & Macmahon, Inc., trading as the Virginia & North Carolina Whéel Company, defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $577.20 and costs, defendant appeals.
    Charles C. Stilwell, for appellant.
    Herbert A. Schryver, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topip and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.