Case Name: W. B. Louer, trading as W. B. Louer Company, Appellee, v. Thomas M. White and Thomas L. Russell, copartners, trading as Thomas M. White Company, Appellants
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1918-01-28
Citations: 209 Ill. App. 323
Docket Number: Gen. No. 23,494
Parties: W. B. Louer, trading as W. B. Louer Company, Appellee, v. Thomas M. White and Thomas L. Russell, copartners, trading as Thomas M. White Company, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 209
Pages: 323–324

Head Matter:
W. B. Louer, trading as W. B. Louer Company, Appellee, v. Thomas M. White and Thomas L. Russell, copartners, trading as Thomas M. White Company, Appellants.
Gen. No. 23,494. (Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Sales, § 153 —what constitutes acceptance of machine sent on trial. .Where a written contract for the purchase of an excavator machine provided that the machine was “to work in clay excavating satisfactory to the” purchaser, and that he should pay a certain amount when the machine was accepted and the balance in 30 days, the payment by the purchaser of the amount named after he had used the machine for 10 days constituted an acceptance of it according to the terms of the contract.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed January 28, 1918.
Statement of the Case.
Action by W. B. Loner, trading as W. B. Loner Company, plaintiff, against Thomas M. White and Thomas L. Bussell, copartners, trading as Thomas M. White Company, defendants, to recover the balance of the purchase price of an excavator. From a judgment for plaintiff for $896.50, defendants appeal.
S. M. Schall, for appellants.
Webster & Sherrard and Julius Stern, for appellee; Julius Stern, Daniel Webster and Arthur A. Sherrard, of counsel.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McSurely
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Sales, § 146 —when machine deemed to work to satisfaction of purchaser. Where a machine is furnished to work to the satisfaction of the purchaser of it, and such work is a matter of common experience, such as ordinary mechanical work, what, in reason ought to satisfy the contracting party in law will he held to satisfy him.
'3. Sales, § 148*—necessity of early notice of dissatisfaction with machine. Where a machine is to he satisfactory to the purchaser of it, notice of dissatisfaction or of failure of the machine must he given to the seller at the earliest practicable moment.