Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0472-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McGoorty", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. S. Wilber and O. H. Inness, trading as Wilber & Inness, Defendants in Error, v. Giuseppe and Filippo Mirabella, trading as G. Mirabella & Company, Plaintiffs in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,153.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Sales, § 329
      
      —when evidence is sufficient to sustain verdict for plaintiff in action for purchase price of produce. In an action to recover the contract price for two carloads of potatoes, where the only questions were whether the sale was unconditional or dependent upon quality, and whether the sale was by invoice weight or scale weight, held that the verdict in favor of plaintiff was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 1, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by W. S. Wilber and O. H. Inness, trading as Wilber & Inness, plaintiffs, against Giuseppe and Filippo Mirabella, trading as G. Mirabella & Company, defendants. From a judgment for plaintiffs for $611.56, defendants bring error.
    De Stefano & Mirabella and Charles Hughes, for plaintiffs in error.
    Lambert Kaspers, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, game topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Sales, § 142 —when purchaser is bound by inspection made. In an action to recover the contract price for two carloads of pota-' toes, where the question of acceptance was in controversy, and it appeared that the potatoes, which were in open sacks, had been in part examined by the defendants, held that the question was not whether there actually was a thorough inspection, but whether there was a reasonable opportunity for such inspection before acceptance, and as the defendant had such opportunity and did in part inspect, the judgment in favor of plaintiff would be affirmed.