Central Steel & Wire Co. v. Coating Research Corp., 76-1609

Decision Date07 October 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-1609,76-1609
Parties, 11 Ill.Dec. 686 CENTRAL STEEL & WIRE CO., a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COATING RESEARCH CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Charles L. Wolberg and Merrill B. Meyer, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Rappaport & Meyer, Chicago, of counsel.

SULLIVAN, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $1,799.04 after a bench trial. The amount represented a balance due on the account between the parties for the sale and delivery of a quantity of material. Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in allowing the impeachment of its president without a foundation having been laid and in admitting certain business records; and (2) that the evidence established plaintiff contracted and did business with a third party, Coating Research Corporation of Michigan, and not with defendant.

Only two witnesses testified in this case. James Miller, an inside salesman for plaintiff, stated that in February, 1975, he received a telephone order for material from Rich Vignola, who said he was ordering for Coating Research Corporation, in Schaumburg, Illinois (defendant herein) and that Vignola requested that the material be delivered to E-Z Grinding Company, also in Schaumburg. In March, 1975, the material was delivered as requested, and a billing was sent to defendant for $1,854.04 of which only $75 has been paid.

Richard Vignola, president of defendant company, denied ordering the material in question and denied promising that defendant would pay for it. He said that defendant had never done business with plaintiff and the type of material involved (aluminum) was not used in the regular course of defendant's operations. He remembered receiving a billing for the material but stated his belief that he told plaintiff to send the bill to Coating Research Corporation of Michigan, located in Detroit. Vignola admitted that he designed and assembled a machine for the Michigan corporation and that the material in question which had been sent to E-Z Grinding was eventually used in the machine he had designed. He also recalled having telephone conversations with personnel of plaintiff subsequent to the original billing for the material but stated he made no promise that defendant would pay it.

Vignola testified also that Carl Bagnell had asked him in September, 1974, to design the machine and that Bagnell, being without funds, said he would form a corporation and give Vignola stock for the work he was to do. Although Coating Research Corporation of Michigan was incorporated on November 5, 1974, with Bagnell as president, Vignola said he never received any stock and did not know whether he was listed as an officer but he did cosign some of that company's checks with Bagnell.

A number of exhibits offered by plaintiff were received in evidence, including the telephone order form in the handwriting of Miller, which bears the name of defendant as the customer and Rich Vignola as the caller. Included also was a follow-up billing which was admitted for the limited purpose of showing that plaintiff had billed defendant.

OPINION

Defendant first contends that the trial court improperly allowed impeachment of its president, Vignola.

During a section 60 examination, after Vignola had denied any promise to pay for the materials, he was asked the following question by plaintiff's attorney:

"So, if I told you that my records show that you had a conversation with the Credit Manager at Central Steel and Wire on September 16, 1975 in which you promised payment, would you say that was incorrect?"

Thereafter, the following colloquy occurred:

"MR. RUDNIK: Objection, your Honor. He's already answered.

MR. MEYER: No. He can answer that.

THE COURT: Let him finish his objection.

MR. RUDNIK: He's already asked and he's already answered. It's asked and answered. I think he's trying to refresh recollection possibly with a document that's self-serving. I don't think he can even refresh the recollection of the witness at this point. So I would object. It's been answered already.

THE COURT: You may answer. Overruled. Answer.

BY THE WITNESS:

A Okay. The procedure was if I had spoke to any individuals that called for the Michigan corporation, the only answers I would have given Central Steel would have been that any payment that was due to them would probably would have to come from the Detroit corporation."

Defendant now argues the question asked was an attempt to impeach Vignola and that the court erred in allowing the question to be asked because no foundation had been laid. We reject this contention for a number of reasons: First, although a proper objection should have been sustained to the question because it is clearly improper as to form and substance, it appears that defendant objected only because the question had already been asked and answered. However, as the record discloses that the question had not been previously asked, the court did not err in overruling the objection on that ground. Moreover, a specific objection to evidence, as was the case here, is a waiver of other grounds. (See E. A. Meyer Construction Co. v. Drobnick (1964), 49 Ill.App.2d 51, 199 N.E.2d 447; Atlee Electric Company, Inc. v. Johnson Construction Co. (1973), 14 Ill.App.3d 716, 303 N.E.2d 192; 34 Ill.L. & Prac. Trial § 63 (1958).) Second, where the ground of an objection is of a character that may be obviated or remedied, the party objecting must point out the objection specifically, so as to afford the opportunity to correct it. (People v. Fain (1976), 41 Ill.App.3d 872, 355 N.E.2d 61; Mack v. Davis (1966), 76 Ill.App.2d 88, 221 N.E.2d 121.) Since foundation is required where the impeachment is by prior inconsistent statement (People v. Powell (1973), 53 Ill.2d 465, 292 N.E.2d 409), and because lack of foundation is a ground of objection which is of a character that might be obviated or remedied, it should have been specifically stated (see 34 Ill.L. & Prac. Trial § 63 (1958)). Third, because an objection to lack of foundation should have been made in the trial court, the ground may not be raised on appeal for the first time. (First National Bank of Elgin v. Husted (1965), 57 Ill.App.2d 227, 205 N.E.2d 780.) Fourth, even were we to assume error in allowing the question to be answered, reversal is not required where there has been no prejudice. (Walters v. Taylor (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 934, 344 N.E.2d 765; Fugate v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (1973), 12 Ill.App.3d 656, 300 N.E.2d 600.) Here, Vignola made no direct answer to the question, and the only possibility of prejudice would be an implication from the question that he promised payment to plaintiff's credit manager. In view of the fact that Vignola on several occasions made the positive statement that he made no promises to pay the billing and because the record reveals no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Sharbono v. Hilborn, 3–12–0597.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 21, 2014
    ...Trucks, Inc., 258 Ill.App.3d 4, 8, 196 Ill.Dec. 121, 629 N.E.2d 666 (1994) (citing Central Steel & Wire Co. v. Coating Research Corp., 53 Ill.App.3d 943, 945–46, 11 Ill.Dec. 686, 369 N.E.2d 140 (1977) ). Plaintiff failed to do so. Even in criminal cases where a forfeited claim may be consid......
  • Iaccino v. Anderson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 3, 2010
    ...be admitted as a prior inconsistent statement, a proper foundation must be laid. Central Steel & Wire Co. v. Coating Research Corp., 53 Ill.App.3d 943, 946, 11 Ill.Dec. 686, 369 N.E.2d 140 (1977). The foundation is laid by directing the witness's attention to the time, place and circumstanc......
  • Bafia v. City Intern. Trucks, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 31, 1994
    ...... sought to be introduced." (Volvo of America Corp. v. Gibson (1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 487, 491, 39 ... (Central Steel & Wire Co. v. Coating Research Corp. ......
  • Thomas v. Police Bd. of City of Chicago, 79-1801
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 17, 1980
    ......Corp. Counsel, Robert R. Retke, Asst. Corp. Counsel, ... Central Steel & Wire Co. v. Coating Research Corp. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT