Case Name: Friedrich Heinz, Defendant in Error, v. Baldwin County Colonization Company, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1915-11-01
Citations: 195 Ill. App. 265
Docket Number: Gen. No. 20,490
Parties: Friedrich Heinz, Defendant in Error, v. Baldwin County Colonization Company, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 195
Pages: 265–267

Head Matter:
Friedrich Heinz, Defendant in Error, v. Baldwin County Colonization Company, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 20,490.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed November 1, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Friedrich Heinz, plaintiff, against Baldwin County Colonization Company, a corporation, defend ant, to recover $251 paid by plaintiff to defendant on a contract entered into April 1, 1909, for the purchase of certain real estate of defendant for $1,000, the contract having been entered into while plaintiff was a minor. The court gave plaintiff judgment for the amount claimed, and to reverse such judgment this writ of error is prosecuted.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Appeal and error, § 1377 —when refusal to permit further cross-emarmnation of plaintiff not ground for reversal. The refusal of the trial court, after a plaintiff called as a witness in his own behalf had been examined and cross-examined and after two post ponements of the hearing, to permit him to be recalled for further cross-examination, held not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
The trial began February 10, 1914. . Plaintiff was called as a witness in his own behalf, was examined and cross-examined, and the further hearing of the cause was then postponed to February 28th. It was further postponed to April 3rd. April 1st defendant’s attorney gave notice to plaintiff’s attorney that he desired to further cross-examine plaintiff, and, if not produced, he would move to strike out his testimony. He was not produced. Defendant’s motion to strike out his testimony was denied.
Plaintiff became of age December 12,1909. In April,' 1910, and again in October, 1912, he informed the defendant that he did not want to keep the land and demanded his money back. The land was not conveyed to the plaintiff, but a contract of purchase and sale was entered into. Defendant offered to repay bim $75 of the $251 that he paid, but he declined the offer.
Sabath, Stafford & Sabath, for plaintiff in error.
John M. Bryant, for defendant in error.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and. section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Baker
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Infants, § 23 —when disaffirmance of contract in reasonable time. Evidence examined in action to recover purchase price paid by infant on purchase price of land, and held to show that contract had been disaffirmed in reasonable time after plaintiff had arrived at age.