Auto Light & Manufacturing Co. v. 35% Automobile Supply Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Auto Light & Manufacturing Co. v. 35% Automobile Supply Co.

189 Ill. App. 543, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 406

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 19, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,866

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 Ill. App. 543 (Auto Light & Manufacturing Co. v. 35% Automobile Supply Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Auto Light & Manufacturing Co. v. 35% Automobile Supply Co., 189 Ill. App. 543, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 406 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 573*—when exception is necessary to preserve right of appeal. A defendant who does not specifically except to a portion of an oral charge cannot complain of it on appeal. 3. Instructions, § 81*—when instruction is erroneous as unduly emphasizing facts. In an action for goods sold to a corporation, where the defense was that the transaction was with another corporation, an instruction that the jury could consider that the contract was made at the office of the Illinois corporation was erroneous, since the court had no right to- single out certain portions of the evidence bearing on a controverted question of fact and tell the jury to consider them; but the error was harmless where it appeared that under the facts a new trial would not change the result. 4. Sales, § 330*—when instruction as to implied contract is proper. In an action for goods sold to an Illinois corporation, where the defense was that the transaction was with another corporation, an instruction based on the theory that the goods were accepted and used by the defendant held not erroneous as against an objection that there was no evidence to support it. 5. Interest, § 6*—when allowed. In an action for goods sold on a written order, the sale being for cash and for a certain and definite sum, due at a specified time, the plaintiff was entitled to interest regardless of the question whether there had been an unreasonable and vexatious delay of payment of the money due.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 573*—when exception is necessary to preserve right of appeal. A defendant who does not specifically except to a portion of an oral charge cannot complain of it on appeal. 3. Instructions, § 81*—when instruction is erroneous as unduly emphasizing facts. In an action for goods sold to a corporation, where the defense was that the transaction was with another corporation, an instruction that the jury could consider that the contract was made at the office of the Illinois corporation was erroneous, since the court had no right to- single out certain portions of the evidence bearing on a controverted question of fact and tell the jury to consider them; but the error was harmless where it appeared that under the facts a new trial would not change the result. 4. Sales, § 330*—when instruction as to implied contract is proper. In an action for goods sold to an Illinois corporation, where the defense was that the transaction was with another corporation, an instruction based on the theory that the goods were accepted and used by the defendant held not erroneous as against an objection that there was no evidence to support it. 5. Interest, § 6*—when allowed. In an action for goods sold on a written order, the sale being for cash and for a certain and definite sum, due at a specified time, the plaintiff was entitled to interest regardless of the question whether there had been an unreasonable and vexatious delay of payment of the money due.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 Ill. App. 543, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auto-light-manufacturing-co-v-35-automobile-supply-co-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack