Wallace v. Wren
| Decision Date | 30 April 1863 |
| Citation | 32 Ill. 146,1863 WL 3163 |
| Parties | JOHN S. WALLACEv.EDWARD WREN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Superior Court of Chicago.
The judgment in both the courts below was for the plaintiff. The facts and the rulings of the court below assigned as error, sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Mather & Taft, for appellant.
S. Marble, for appellee.
This was an action for a breach of warranty of a horse. As to the fact of a warranty the testimony is conflicting; one witness swearing positively to a warranty, and another swearing just as positively that there was no warranty. So, too, upon the question of unsoundness, the testimony is conflicting, though, we think, the clear preponderance of the evidence is in favor of the plaintiff, on this point. In this state of the evidence, we cannot disturb the verdict. It was for the jury to determine as to the credibility of the conflicting witnesses. For the purpose of showing that the horse had the glanders, the court permitted the plaintiff to show that a mule which worked with the horse took that disease, of which he died. We see no error in this. There was proof that glanders is contagious, and if that be so, then the proof was undoubtedly pertinent and proper.
The court properly refused to instruct the jury as to what would constitute a fraud in the sale of a horse. The action was on a warranty, and the jury had nothing to do with the question of fraud. The plaintiff could not have recovered for a fraud. Of that the justice had no jurisdiction.
The only remaining question is upon the rule laid down by the court for the measure of damages. The court told the jury that the measure of damages was the difference between the value of the horse as he was, and his value if sound. This, it is said, was in conflict with what we said in Crabtree v. Kile, 21 Ill., 180. There, the cattle were paid for in cash, at a fixed price, and it is said that in such a case, the measure of damages is the difference between the price paid and the value of the cattle. If that be the correct rule in such a case, it is not applicable to a case like this, where no fixed price was paid for the horse, but another horse was given in exchange for him. That reduces the question at once to one of estimated value, and it is as feasible to estimate the value of the one horse as the other, and the rule laid down by the court in this case would seem to be the most just and most...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bosler v. Coble
...for or against the plaintiff or the defendant upon this issue. (Hollen v. Wisner, 11 Iowa 190; Hall v. Strode (Neb.), 28 N.Y. 312; Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 146; C. C. & I. R. v. Troesch, 68 Ill. 545; Chi. & Alton R. Co. v. Mock, 72 Ill. 141.) The action of the court in refusing effectually ......
-
Vill. of Warren v. Wright
...46 Ill. 54; Varner v. Varner, 69 Ill. 445. Unless clearly against the weight of evidence the verdict will not be disturbed: Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 146; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Shannon, 43 Ill. 338; O'Brien v. Palmer, 49 Ill. 72; Hayes v. Houston, 86 Ill. 487; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 87 ......
-
The Vill. of Warren v. Wright
... ... Ch. v. Emerson, 66 Ill. 269; Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill. 516; Plummer v. Rigdon, 78 Ill. 222; Miller v. Balthasser, 78 Ill. 302; Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 146; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Shannon, 43 Ill. 338; O'Brien v. Palmer, 49 Ill. 72. The verdict will not be disturbed even when against ... ...
-
The Chicago v. Hale
... ... to the testimony of witnesses, and two juries having passed upon this case with the same result, their verdict ought not to be disturbed: Wallace v. Wren, 32 Ill. 146; White v. Clayes, 32 Ill. 325; Umlauf v. Bassett, 38 Ill. 96; C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Coal & Iron Co. 36 Ill. 60; Tolman v ... ...