Russell & Co. v. Dunbar

Appellate Court of Illinois

Russell & Co. v. Dunbar

201 Ill. App. 411

DecidedJune 10, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 201 Ill. App. 411 (Russell & Co. v. Dunbar) 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

Russell & Co. v. Dunbar, 201 Ill. App. 411 (Ill. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Judgment, § 82*—when leave to file counter-affidavits denied. Where an affidavit filed by a defendant on a motion to open a judgment by confession and for leave to plead shows a prima facie defense to the merits, it is not error to deny a motion by the plaintiff for leave to file counter-affidavits. 3. Sales, § 282*—when evidence as to parol warranties admissible. In an action on a promissory note given in payment for machinery, held that oral warranties, made by the seller’s agent after the buyer had signed the contract for the purchase and before the seller had approved it, were competent to show that the written contract as signed had been changed. 4. Sales, § 401*—when evidence sufficient to show breach of warranty. In an action on a promissory note given in payment for machinery, evidence held to show a breach of warranty of the age and capacity of the machine.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Judgment, § 82*—when leave to file counter-affidavits denied. Where an affidavit filed by a defendant on a motion to open a judgment by confession and for leave to plead shows a prima facie defense to the merits, it is not error to deny a motion by the plaintiff for leave to file counter-affidavits. 3. Sales, § 282*—when evidence as to parol warranties admissible. In an action on a promissory note given in payment for machinery, held that oral warranties, made by the seller’s agent after the buyer had signed the contract for the purchase and before the seller had approved it, were competent to show that the written contract as signed had been changed. 4. Sales, § 401*—when evidence sufficient to show breach of warranty. In an action on a promissory note given in payment for machinery, evidence held to show a breach of warranty of the age and capacity of the machine.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 Ill. App. 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-co-v-dunbar-illappct-1916.