{
  "id": 5145522,
  "name": "Roosevelt Lewis, Appellant, v. Glen Motors, Inc., Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lewis v. Glen Motors, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1955-09-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 46,634",
  "first_page": "104",
  "last_page": "106",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 Ill. App. 2d 104"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "251 Ill. App. 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5588029
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/251/0414-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 268,
    "char_count": 3961,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1557057959749777
    },
    "sha256": "7366ee7b856f8d8c679dd67d98a8db6fc7f3aa83f9ec9f15118f7bd0f6843f11",
    "simhash": "1:6cea8bc3346973a6",
    "word_count": 632
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:05:47.991826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Roosevelt Lewis, Appellant, v. Glen Motors, Inc., Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE LEWE\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff appeals from an order dismissing his amended complaint and entering judgment against plaintiff upon defendant\u2019s motion to strike. No appearance or brief has been filed in this court by defendant.\nAccording to the allegations of the amended complaint plaintiff purchased from defendant, an automobile dealer, a 1950 Chevrolet automobile for the sum of $955. Plaintiff paid $50 in cash and was allowed by defendant a trade-in value of $200 on plaintiff\u2019s 1946 Ford Sedan, thus leaving a balance due defendant on the purchase price of $705.\nAt the time the transaction was consummated defendant\u2019s agent orally promised and agreed with plaintiff that the balance amounting to $705 would be financed by defendant at a legal rate of interest. Plaintiff signed a printed form of contract in blank entitled \u201ccar invoice\u201d furnished by defendant. After plaintiff signed the \u201ccar invoice\u201d defendant, with intent to deceive the plaintiff and without his knowledge or consent, added below the plaintiff\u2019s signature the following: \u201cPayable in 18 monthly installments of $58.62 commencing-to Glen Motors, Inc.\u201d Defendant sold and assigned the \u201ccar invoice\u201d indicating an alleged balance due of $1,055.16 on the Chevrolet automobile to an automobile finance company which informed plaintiff that in the event he failed to make the monthly payments as provided in the car invoice it would repossess the automobile. Plaintiff has paid the finance company the amount of installment payments due under the terms of the alleged contract. He claims damages in the sum of $350.16, that being the difference between the aggregate installment payments and $705 actually due on the purchase price.\nIn its motion to strike the amended statement of claim defendant averred that plaintiff agreed to pay 18 monthly installments of $58.62 each; that the statement of claim is ambiguous; and that by making the monthly payments to the finance company plaintiff ratified the contract.\nIn ruling on defendant\u2019s motion to strike we must assume the allegations of the amended complaint to be true. The pleadings do not show any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the finance company nor does it appear that the finance company knew about the particular sale between plaintiff and defendant. This is an action against the defendant for deceit in fraudulently inducing the plaintiff to enter into the contract here in controversy. Under the circumstances alleged in the amended complaint payments to the finance company did not ratify the transaction between plaintiff and defendant. In Manufacturers Finance Trust v. Stone, 251 Ill. App. 414, the finance company, a bona fide purchaser of a note and chattel mortgage securing payments due on the purchase price of an automobile, instituted a replevin suit to recover possession. There the court held that it is not usury to buy notes in the course of business at a discount higher than the interest allowed by law. We think the facts in that case are readily distinguishable from those in the present case. Here the defendant agreed that the balance due on the purchase price would be financed at a legal rate of interest. Instead, the defendant, according to the charges of the amended complaint, fraudulently added a provision to the contract increasing the balance due to $1,055.16. In our view the amended complaint states a good cause of action and the trial judge erred in sustaining the motion to strike.\nFor the reasons given, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nKILBY and FEINBBRG-, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE LEWE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Arthur Gomberg, of Chicago, for appellant; Samuel Nineberg, of Chicago, of counsel.",
      "No brief filed for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Roosevelt Lewis, Appellant, v. Glen Motors, Inc., Appellee.\nGen. No. 46,634.\nFirst District, Third Division.\nSeptember 28, 1955.\nReleased for publication October 18, 1955.\nArthur Gomberg, of Chicago, for appellant; Samuel Nineberg, of Chicago, of counsel.\nNo brief filed for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0104-01",
  "first_page_order": 160,
  "last_page_order": 162
}