Davis v. Mitchell Automobile Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Davis v. Mitchell Automobile Co.

207 Ill. App. 30

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 27, 1917

DocketGen. No. 21,936

StatusPublished

This text of 207 Ill. App. 30 (Davis v. Mitchell Automobile 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

Davis v. Mitchell Automobile Co., 207 Ill. App. 30 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mb. Pbesiding Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Sales, § 356* — when evidence as to returning of car if unsatisfactory and refunding of payment is admissible. Evidence that on the delivery of a car, bought under a written contract which provided that if the car was not as represented the deposit would be returned, the agent delivering it to the purchaser said that if the car was not satisfactory it could be returned and the initial payment demanded by him thereon would be refunded is admissible, not to vary the contract but as showing that by receiving the car the purchaser did not admit that the car was satisfactory nor that the contract had been performed on the seller’s part. 3. Sales, § 356* — when evidence supports verdict. In an action to recover back the purchase price of an automobile, evidence held to support a verdict for plaintiff.

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

Mb. Pbesiding Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Sales, § 356* — when evidence as to returning of car if unsatisfactory and refunding of payment is admissible. Evidence that on the delivery of a car, bought under a written contract which provided that if the car was not as represented the deposit would be returned, the agent delivering it to the purchaser said that if the car was not satisfactory it could be returned and the initial payment demanded by him thereon would be refunded is admissible, not to vary the contract but as showing that by receiving the car the purchaser did not admit that the car was satisfactory nor that the contract had been performed on the seller’s part. 3. Sales, § 356* — when evidence supports verdict. In an action to recover back the purchase price of an automobile, evidence held to support a verdict for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 Ill. App. 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-mitchell-automobile-co-illappct-1917.