{ "id": 5196209, "name": "Tine Pelham, Father and Next Friend of Joe Pelham, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard Motors, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Pelham v. Howard Motors, Inc.", "decision_date": "1959-02-17", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 47,590", "first_page": "528", "last_page": "531", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "20 Ill. App. 2d 528" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "194 Ill. App. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2875669 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/194/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Ill. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2460535 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "179" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/61/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 Ill. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3329550 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/268/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Ill.App.2d 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5180592 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/16/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 Ill. App. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 3391926 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/316/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 Ill. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5655817 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/241/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 Ill. App. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2987793 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/218/0534-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 338, "char_count": 4648, "ocr_confidence": 0.526, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2866071003299587e-07, "percentile": 0.6188248812961682 }, "sha256": "cbdf0a1c27895593d0eb69e230bd71dd36edeef07be0e2ec54fdaf7042758230", "simhash": "1:96f7c37cf1ec9014", "word_count": 791 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:34.543090+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "LEWE, P. J. and MURPHY, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "Tine Pelham, Father and Next Friend of Joe Pelham, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard Motors, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KILEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an action to recover the down payment a minor made in the purchase of an automobile. The trial court, without a jury, found that the automobile was a \u201cnecessary\u201d and entered judgment for defendant\u2019s costs. Plaintiff has appealed.\nThe minor bought the automobile on May 21, 1956, under a conditional sale contract for $2075.60, and paid $500 down. At that time, he was 20 years and three months old, but in the Bill of Sale he certified that he was \u201c21 years of age or over,\u201d and he told the seller he was 22 years of age, because he \u201cwanted to buy a car and I could not buy it at the age of twenty.\u201d He drove the car home and brought it back to the seller the next evening for repairs. He \u201cpicked it up\u201d the next day, but \u201cthey had not done anything.\u201d He left it with the seller May 26, and on May 29 his attorney wrote defendant \u201crepudiating\u201d the contract and demanding return of the down payment. The demand was refused and this suit followed.\nThe question is whether the automobile was a \u201cnecessary.\u201d If it was, the court\u2019s judgment was right because \u201cit is well established, as a general rule, that an infant or his estate may be held liable for necessaries furnished him,\u201d Zazove v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 218 Ill. App. 534, 27 I. L. P. Minors, Sec. 46, p. 42. The fact of emancipation is not relevant, Wuller v. Chuse Grocery Co., 241 Ill. 398, Shellabarger v. Jacobs, 316 Ill. App. 191, nor is the question of misrepresentation, Tyda v. Reiter-Schmidt, 16 Ill.App.2d 370, Hunter v. Egolf Motor Co., 268 Ill. App. 1.\nOur Supreme Court in 1871, in McKanna v. Merry, 61 Ill. 177, 179, said \u201cThe articles furnished, or money advanced, must be actually necessary, in the particular case, for use, not mere ornament, for substantial good, not mere pleasure. . . . The courts have generally excluded from the term \u2018necessaries,\u2019 horses. . . .\u201d But the court pointed out that if riding was necessary for the minor\u2019s health a horse would not be excluded. In 1915 this court, in Lein v. Centaur Motor Co., 194 Ill. App. 509, affirmed judgment for the minor in recovering a down payment on an automobile, despite the defense that the automobile was intended for use in, and was necessary to, the business of passenger service. The court stated that the doctrine of \u201cnecessaries\u201d was not to be extended to the minor\u2019s trading contracts.\nWe recognize the rule stated in McKanna v. Merry, with respect to the question of fact: whether an \u201c[article] comes within the particular class and is suitable\u201d is to be determined by the trier of fact. We take this to mean, as applied to the instant case, that the question of law, to wit: automobiles used for pleasure are not \u201cnecessary,\u201d having been decided, the question for the trier of fact is: is the particular automobile used for pleasure ?\nThe argument from statistics in defendant\u2019s brief clearly indicates the changes in our economy, with respect to production, sale and ownership of automobiles, since McKanna v. Merry and Lein v. Centaur Motor Co., supra. Nevertheless the courts have continuously sustained the principle that a minor may disaffirm contracts except for \u201cnecessaries.\u201d The arguments and statistics, in our opinion, are not persuasive to establish that the automobile in this case was a \u201cnecessary.\u201d\nThe only testimony adduced to show that the automobile was a \u201cnecessary\u201d was in cross-examination of plaintiff. He stated he worked at Anna\u2019s Flower Shop, had worked there for five years as a porter, and never made deliveries. The plain inference that the automobile was for pleasure is also indicated by the answer \u201cpleasure\u201d to the question, in the Conditional Sales Contract, \u201cWill the car be used for Pleasure, Business, Taxicab or Hire!\u201d We think the car was not a \u201cnecessary,\u201d as a matter of law.\nAn automobile for a minor for pleasure is not an article of a kind for which a minor is liable. The trial court\u2019s finding was erroneous and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nLEWE, P. J. and MURPHY, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KILEY" } ], "attorneys": [ "John W. Washington, of CMcago, for Tine Pelham, Father and next friend of Joe Pelham, a minor, plaintiff.", "Arvey, Hodes & Mantynband, of Chicago (Howard Arvey, Ralph A. Mantynband, of counsel) for Howard Motors, Inc., defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Tine Pelham, Father and Next Friend of Joe Pelham, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard Motors, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.\nGen. No. 47,590.\nFirst District, Second Division.\nFebruary 17, 1959.\nReleased for publication March 20, 1959.\nJohn W. Washington, of CMcago, for Tine Pelham, Father and next friend of Joe Pelham, a minor, plaintiff.\nArvey, Hodes & Mantynband, of Chicago (Howard Arvey, Ralph A. Mantynband, of counsel) for Howard Motors, Inc., defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0528-01", "first_page_order": 544, "last_page_order": 547 }