Hamilton v. the Singer Mfg. Co..
| Decision Date | 30 September 1870 |
| Citation | 54 Ill. 370,1870 WL 6343 |
| Parties | JAMES HAMILTONv.THE SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. ERASTUS S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of replevin, brought by the Singer Manufacturing Company against James Hamilton. A trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. Mr. B. S. MORRIS, for the appellant.
Messrs. ELDRIDGE & TOURTELLOTTE, for the appellees.
The evidence in this case shows, that appellees sold and delivered to the wife of appellant, in June, 1866, a sewing machine, and received twenty dollars in part payment. Mrs. Hamilton was to pay seventy dollars for the machine, in monthly payments, after the first.
On the twenty-fourth of January, 1867, the company had the machine seized by virtue of a writ of replevin and removed from the house of appellant. We can not refrain from characterizing the conduct of the officer, on the occasion, as most violent and outrageous, and grossly insulting to Mrs. Hamilton. There was no evidence of a demand and refusal.
The only evidence in the record upon which the instructions given for the plaintiff were based, was that of Arnet, who testified “that he called on Hamilton several months after; asked for the balance due on machine sent to her, and he was told the one sent to her was not such as she contracted for, and the expressman was so informed at the time he left it; whenever she shall be furnished with such they would be paid according to agreement, but not a dollar more till then; if they did not deliver a machine with a cover, they could return twenty dollars to her and take away the one left.”
The court then instructed the jury for the plaintiffs, as follows:
1. “If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendant stated to the plaintiffs, or their agent, that he was going to keep the machine in controversy and would not give it up to plaintiffs, and that such statement was made by the defendant, with knowledge and in view of the claim of said plaintiffs to said machine, such statement would excuse the plaintiffs from making a formal demand of the defendant of the machine in question, and the plaintiffs would be entitled to a verdict, if the jury find, from the evidence, that the machine was, in fact, the property of the plaintiffs and not of the defendant.
2. If the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mohler v. Guest Piano Co.
...depreciation. Hays v. Jordan, 85 Ga. 741, 11 S. E. 833, 9 L. R. A. 373;National Co. v. Cervone, 76 Ohio St. 12, 80 N. E. 1033;Hamilton v. Singer, 54 Ill. 370;Commercial Co. v. Campbell, 111 Ga. 388, 36 S. E. 756. If the vendee may recover, it is payments made, less the damages sustained by ......
-
Mohler v. Guest Piano Co.
... ... 741 (11 S.E. 833); National C. R. Co. v ... Cervone, 76 Ohio St. 12 (80 N.E. 1033); Hamilton v ... Singer Mfg. Co., 54 Ill. 370; Commercial Pub. Co. v ... Campbell, etc., Co., 111 Ga ... ...
-
Breon v. Hinkle
... ... Misenheimer, 78 Ill. 22; St. Louis, A. & T.H.R. Co ... v. Manly, 58 Ill. 300; Oxley v. Storer, 54 Ill ... 9; Hamilton v. Singer Manuf'g Co., 54 Ill ... 370; Jordan v. Headman, 61 ... ...
-
Wadhams v. Innes
...Troy & B. R. R. Co. v. Pother, 42 Vt. 365. Instructions should be based on evidence: Coughlin v. The People, 18 Ill. 266; Hamilton v. Singer Mfg. Co. 54 Ill. 370; Piner v. Cover, 55 Ill. 391; T. W. & W. R. R. Co. v. Ingraham, 77 Ill. 314; Holcomb v. Davis, 56 Ill. 413; Rockford Ins. Co. v. ......