D. H. Baldwin & Co. v. Alwine

Appellate Court of Illinois

D. H. Baldwin & Co. v. Alwine

109 Ill. App. 92, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 385

DecidedApril 30, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 109 Ill. App. 92 (D. H. Baldwin & Co. v. Alwine) 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

D. H. Baldwin & Co. v. Alwine, 109 Ill. App. 92, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 385 (Ill. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Wright

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit by appellee against appellants to recover back $105 paid to the latter upon a piano which had been sold and warranted. The verdict was for $50, upon which the court gave judgment against appellants and this appeal followed.

There was conflict of evidence as to the condition of the instrument, and how its bad condition was produced. The instrument was returned to appellants, and there is controversy whether it was accepted by appellants upon its return. We are disposed to accept the verdict of the jury as decisive of all these questions of fact, in the absence of prejudicial rulings of the court, and we find none, either in the rulings upon the evidence, or the instructions to the jury, although the appellants complain in those respects. The appellants set off the rental value of the piano for the time it was in appellee’s possession, and we think the verdict does substantial justice between the parties. The judgment of the County Court will be affirmed.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Wright

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit by appellee against appellants to recover back $105 paid to the latter upon a piano which had been sold and warranted. The verdict was for $50, upon which the court gave judgment against appellants and this appeal followed.

There was conflict of evidence as to the condition of the instrument, and how its bad condition was produced. The instrument was returned to appellants, and there is controversy whether it was accepted by appellants upon its return. We are disposed to accept the verdict of the jury as decisive of all these questions of fact, in the absence of prejudicial rulings of the court, and we find none, either in the rulings upon the evidence, or the instructions to the jury, although the appellants complain in those respects. The appellants set off the rental value of the piano for the time it was in appellee’s possession, and we think the verdict does substantial justice between the parties. The judgment of the County Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 Ill. App. 92, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/d-h-baldwin-co-v-alwine-illappct-1903.