Bingham v. Maxcy

• Decision Date: 31 December 1853
• Citation: 1853 WL 4860,15 Ill. 295,5 Peck 295
• Parties: J. L. BINGHAM et al.v.J. A. MAXCY, Administrator of Preston.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

15 Ill. 295
1853 WL 4860 (Ill.)
5 Peck (IL) 295

J. L. BINGHAM et al.
v.
J. A. MAXCY, Administrator of Preston.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

December Term, 1853.

Error to Macoupin.

The rule of caveat emptor is strictly applicable to sales by administrators. The purchaser must inquire into title and quality before purchasing.¹

THIS cause was heard before WOODSON, judge, at October term, 1850, of the Macoupin circuit court.

W. WEER, Jr., for plaintiffs in error.J. M. PALMER, for defendant in error.

TREAT, C. J.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Maxcy, administrator of Preston, against Bingham and others. The declaration was on a promissory note made by the defendants to the plaintiff in his character of administrator. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit, and gave notice that they would prove on the trial, as a defense to the action, “that the note sued on was given to the said plaintiff as administrator, for the assignment and transfer to the said defendants of the patent right to make, use, vend, and sell in the state of Michigan, Eaton's improved grain thresher and cleaner; the right of which was patented to William Eaton, on the 28th day of July, 1843, and the right of the state of Michigan being, or pretended to have been, assigned to the intestate, Noah Preston; said defendants herewith file the specifications accompanying said patent right, and make them part of this notice, in which are set forth the pretended combinations and improvements in the machinery aforesaid, and which said defendants say were neither new nor useful, but that the same parts of machinery had all been used for like purposes and in different combinations, and producing the same effect; said defendants also give notice that they will prove that said combinations which are denominated in the patent as new and useful were only new things made out of old materials, and that the same were frivolous; and also that threshing and cleaning machines made in accordance with the specifications and under the direction of said Eaton were not adapted to the purposes contemplated in the patent, and were greatly inferior to other machines then at

[15 Ill. 296]

the time of said patent known and in use; they will also prove in defense that the whole of said combination was in use with like effect anterior to the pretended combinations made by said Eaton, who is not the inventor, discoverer or combiner of the several parts alleged to be new and useful; and so the defendants say that the...