Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Niehaus", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moorman Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. Frank Wilson, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 6,497. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the City Court of Kewanee; the Hon. H. Steblinb Pomebov, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed February 12, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Moorman Manufacturing Company, plaintiff, against Frank Wilson, defendant, to recover $42 as the price of 600 pounds of Moorman Hog Remedy sold to defendant by plaintiff’s agent. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, where judgment was for the plaintiff. On appeal, defendant had judgment for costs on verdict of a jury.
    Charles E. Mulligan, for appellant.
    James H. Andrews, for appellee; Harvey J. Carson, of counsel.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Sales, § 314
      
      —when no recovery may he had for article worthless for purpose intended. In an action to recover from the defendant the purchase price of a certain hog remedy sold him by plaintiff, plaintiff could not recover if the remedy was worthless for the purpose for which it was sold.
    2. Sales, § 328*—what are questions for jury in action to recover purchase price of hog remedy.' In an action to recover the purchase price of a certain hog remedy sold by plaintiff to defendant, held that whether the remedy was fed by defendant to his hogs according to directions given him and whether it had the effect upon his hogs stated by him were questions for the jury.
    3. Sales, § 329*—when shown that hog remedy did not have represented effect. Evidence held sufficient to warrant a finding that a certain hog remedy sold by plaintiff to defendant was sold upon certain representations as to its effect upon hogs and that it did not have such effect upon defendant’s hogs.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.