McNeil & Higgins Co. v. Neenah Cheese & Cold Storage Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 13052.,13052. |
| Citation | 290 Ill. 449,125 N.E. 251 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | McNEIL & HIGGINS CO. v. NEENAH CHEESE & COLD STORAGE CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by the McNeil & Higgins Company against the Neenah Cheese & Cold Storage Company. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
Transferred to the Appellate Court for the First District.
Appeal from Municipal Court of Chicago; Harry Olson, Judge.
Edward J. Kelley, of Chicago, for appellant.
Charles J. Faulkner, Jr., Walter C. Kirk, and J. C. Spence, all of Chicago, for appellee.
This suit was brought in the municipal court of Chicago by appellant to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by it an account of the failure of appellee to deliver 300 boxes of cheese which would be satisfactory to appellant. The record shows that, after an agreement was entered into to deliver such cheese, appellee shipped a carload of cheese, containing 300 boxes, to Chicago to be delivered to appellant. Appellant on inspection did not approve and accept the cheese. On the trial in the municipal court the issues were found for appellee, and appellant has brought the case directly to this court on appeal.
Apparently the only ground for the direct appeal is that the constitutionality of the Uniform Sales Act is here questioned. It is unnecessary to state the terms of the contract concerning the shipment of cheese or refer to the testimony, for the reason that it appears from an inspection of the record that counsel for appellant did not raise the question of the constitutionality of the statute in the court below and that the trial court did not pass upon the validity of the act. We find that counsel for appellant objected to questions asking what the custom or usage was, on the ground that there could be no general usage or custom that would conflict with the state laws or abrogate a contract; but, so far as we can ascertain from the record, appellant did not question the constitutionality or validity of the Uniform Sales Act. At the close of all the evidence counsel for appellant moved to strike out all the testimony with reference to the alleged custom or usage, saying:
In the assignment of errors in this court counsel for the first time questions the constitutionality of the Uniform Sales Act. This court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heine v. Degen
...271 Ill. 480, 111 N.E. 524,Odin Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission, 297 Ill. 392, 130 N.E. 704, and McNeil & Higgins Co. v. Neenah Cheese & Cold Storage Co., 290 Ill. 449, 125 N.E. 251, to sustain their contention that the appellants were under the duty to point out what articles of the Cons......
-
Zehender & Factor, Inc. v. Murphy
...by it, and the person challenging its validity must have preserved proper exceptions to such rulings. McNeil & Higgins Co. v. Neenah Cheese & Cold Storage Co., 290 Ill. 449, 125 N.E. 251;Moses v. Royal Indemnity Co., 276 Ill. 177, 114 N.E. 554;Cummings v. People, 211 Ill. 392, 71 N.E. 1031.......
-
Phelps v. Bd. of Appeals of City of Chicago
...Township, 324 Ill. 200, 154 N. E. 898;Davis v. Industrial Com., 297 Ill. 29, 130 N. E. 333, 15 A. L. R. 732;McNeil & Higgins Co. v. Neenah Cheese Co., 290 Ill. 449, 125 N. E. 251;People v. Rawson, 278 Ill. 654, 116 N. E. 123;Moses v. Royal Indemnity Co., 276 Ill. 177, 114 N. E. 554;Wennerst......
-
People ex rel. Rago v. Lipsky
...question is not before this court because it was not passed upon by the superior court. This is necessary. McNeil & Higgins Co. v. Neenah Cheese Co., 290 Ill. 449, 125 N.E. 251;Ryan v. City of Chicago, 363 Ill. 607, 2 N.E.2d 913. It has likewise been held that the constitutional question mu......