{ "id": 5343841, "name": "John G. Craig, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Coach & Carriage Company, Defendant in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Craig v. Chicago Coach & Carriage Co.", "decision_date": "1912-10-03", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,915", "first_page": "564", "last_page": "567", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "172 Ill. App. 564" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "222 Ill. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3339140 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/222/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 Ill. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3408609 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "519" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/245/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "238 Ill. 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3427505 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/238/0240-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 Ill. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3422743 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "244" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/240/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 Ill. 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3356877 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/217/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 Ill. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2727422 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/94/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 Ill. 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3088650 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/142/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 Ill. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5654748 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/242/0088-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 371, "char_count": 6255, "ocr_confidence": 0.509, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.966205063330921e-08, "percentile": 0.4219971897975519 }, "sha256": "da4330674a4abd968cfe2c03bc0c5fdbe34855b4b071710e346b477debabedbd", "simhash": "1:996f5d9594de9cf1", "word_count": 1084 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:03:04.791769+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "John G. Craig, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Coach & Carriage Company, Defendant in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff in error sued defendant in error in the Municipal Court for damages claimed to have heen sustained by reason of an alleged breach of warranty in the sale of an automobile. The plaintiff\u2019s claim is that at the time he bought the automobile, the defendant warranted that the automobile would do all the work of the plaintiff, or if not, that defendant would take back the automobile and refund the purchase price, and that it also guaranteed the machine for one year against all defects in workmanship and material. Upon the trial in the court below, when the plaintiff undertook to prove an oral warranty, it was objected to upon the ground that there was a written contract. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel claimed that the alleged written contract had been altered after it was signed. The alleged written contract was then produced. It was a paper entitled \u201ccontract,\u201d signed by defendant, in which it agreed to sell and deliver to plaintiff the automobile.in question for $750, with a schedule, in abbreviated form, stating the style of the body, size of wheels, character of top, lamps, tools, painting, trimmings, etc.; and upon the margin, in lead pencil, was written the words \u2018 \u2018 Guarantee as per Cat.\u201d In the lower left-hand corner appears also the signature of the plaintiff. There was evidence tending to prove that the words \u201cas per cat.\u201d referred to the catalogue, and were added after said contract was signed without the plaintiff\u2019s knowledge; and plaintiff\u2019s counsel, in offering to prove the oral guarantee above mentioned, claimed the right to make such proof in explanation of the word \u201cguarantee.\u201d The trial court refused to admit the evidence thus offered. There was evidence tending to prove that the automobile broke down nearly every time it was used, and that after it had been repaired by the defendant many times, plaintiff requested the defendant to take back the machine and refund the purchase price. There was no evidence that defendant refused so to do, beyond the facts that it did not do so, (although the plaintiff caused the machine to be placed in a garage subject to the order of defendant) and that this suit was brought. At the close of the plaintiff\u2019s case, the court directed a verdict for the defendant, and this writ of error is sued out to reverse the judgment entered upon such verdict.\nAs the ease must be reversed and remanded for a new trial, we refrain from discussing the evidence further than is necessary to state the reasons for our opinion. If it be true, as the evidence of plaintiff\u2019s witnesses tended to prove, that the words \u201cas per cat.\u201d were inserted in the contract after the sale, and that at the time of the sale the only statement of warranty or guarantee thereon was merely the word \u201cguarantee,\u201d then it was competent for the plaintiff to show, if he could, the terms of such guarantee. Fuchs & Lang Co. v. Kittredge & Co., 242 Ill. 88. \u201cWhere the agreement in writing is expressed in short and incomplete terms, parol evidence is admissible to explain that which is per se unintelligible, such explanation not being inconsistent with the written terms.\u201d Quoted from Greenl. on Ev., Sec. 282, in Razor v. Razor, 142 Ill. 375, 379. To the same effect are Ruff v. Jarrett, 94 Ill. 475, and Stone v. Mulvaine, 217 Ill. 40. We think the court erred in not admitting the offered evidence on this point.\nWith the contract there was offered in evidence the carbon copy made at the same time, and defendant\u2019s counsel point out the fact that during the discussion, out of the hearing of the jury, concerning the offer of the plaintiff to prove the oral agreement as to the guarantee, the trial court said: \u201cI will tell you what. I think about it, the jury not being here. The evidence all becomes unbelievable in view of the contract copies;\u201d and this view of the evidence is urged as supporting the instruction to find the issues for the defendant. \u201cIn passing upon a motion for a directed verdict the court does not weigh evidence. It looks only to the evidence supporting the claim of the party against whom the motion is directed, and that in the light most favorable to him. Contradictory evidence, however strong, cannot be considered.\u201d Balsewicz v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 240 Ill. 238, 244. On such a motion, only proof most favorable to plaintiff can be considered. The court cannot reject improbable testimony, unless it is contrarv to some natural law. Zetsche v. C. P. & St. L. Ry. Co., 238 Ill. 240. The plaintiff\u2019s evidence, on such a motion, must be \u201ctaken to be true.\u201d Waschow v. Kelly Coal Co., 245 Ill. 516, 519. \u201cTo hold otherwise is to deny to plaintiff the right of trial by jury.\u201d Libby v. Cook, 222 Ill. 206, 213. In our opinion, there was evidence in the record fairly' tending to prove the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action, and it was error for the court to direct a verdict.\nFor the reasons indicated, the judgment of the Municipal Court will be reversed and remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remcmded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch" } ], "attorneys": [ "Joel C. Carlson, for plaintiff in error.", "Elbert C. Ferguson, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "John G. Craig, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago Coach & Carriage Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 16,915.\n1. Evidence \u2014 parol to explain contract. Where in an action for damages for a breach of warranty contained in a contract for the sale of an automobile, it appears that the words \u201cas per cat.\u201d after the word \u201cguarantee\u201d on the margin of the written contract were inserted after the sale and that the word \u201cguarantee\u201d was the only statement of warranty thereon at the time of the sale the plaintiff may show the nature of the guarantee by oral evidence.\n2. Practice \u2014 what evidence considered on motion to direct a verdict. On motion to direct a verdict for the defendant only the proof most favorable to the plaintiff can be considered.\n3. Practice \u2014 when testimony rejected on motion to direct a verdict. On motion to direct a verdict the court cannot reject improbable testimony unless it is contrary to some natural law.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John W. Houston, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 3, 1912.\nJoel C. Carlson, for plaintiff in error.\nElbert C. Ferguson, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0564-01", "first_page_order": 582, "last_page_order": 585 }