Peck v. Scoville Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Peck v. Scoville Manufacturing Co.

43 Ill. App. 360, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 363

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 7, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 43 Ill. App. 360 (Peck v. Scoville Manufacturing 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

Peck v. Scoville Manufacturing Co., 43 Ill. App. 360, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 363 (Ill. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Waterman, P. J.

The rule that where there is an inconsistency, the written portions of a contract will prevail over the printed, has no application where there is no inconsistency and does not do away with the rule that effect is, if possible, to be given to every portion of the contract. There is no necessary inconsistency between the written and printed portions of this lease. King v. Driss, 5 Robertson (N. Y.), 521.

Appellee was bound to restore the premises in good order, “ loss by fire or inevitable accident or ordinary wear excepted.”

A window broken by a stone accidentally kicked by a passing team is not broken by inevitable accident. The kicking of the stone, so far as appellee is concerned, may have been inevitable, but not the breaking of the window; that might have been protected by a blind or wire netting.

The burden of proving that the window was broken by inevitable accident was on appellee; this it failed to do.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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