#### John Hemwall Automobile Company, Defendant in Error, v. George Cassidy, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 18,655.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph Z. Uhlir, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 9, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by John Hemwall Automobile Company against George Cassidy to recover damages for breach of contract for the purchase of an automobile. Plaintiff recovered a judgment in the Municipal Court of *311Chicago for one hundred dollars, to reverse which defendant sued out a writ of error.

Abstract of the Decision.

Automobiles, § 4 * —when purchaser liable for breach of contract. In an action for breach of contract for the purchase of an automobile, plaintiff claimed that the sale was by sample and that a car similar to the sample had been furnished, while defendant contended that he bought a particular car picked out from plaintiff’s stock and did not get it. Defendant used the machine a few days and then returned it and plaintiff resold it at an alleged loss of two hundred dollars. Held that a verdict for plaintiff for one hundred dollars was sustained by the evidence.

Charles A. Ward, for plaintiff in error.

Percival Steele, for defendant in error; H. L. Cavendbr, of counsel.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.