{
  "id": 2869967,
  "name": "William T. Warren, Appellant, v. Renault Freres Selling Branch, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Warren v. Renault Freres Selling Branch",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-06",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,831",
  "first_page": "117",
  "last_page": "118",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 117"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 248,
    "char_count": 3942,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "sha256": "5b492e30a5b5a147d29d7e14e6d0a989a9a4fdd9b337975d3506d11612575eb5",
    "simhash": "1:b7f5cb879c3fb89c",
    "word_count": 666
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William T. Warren, Appellant, v. Renault Freres Selling Branch, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Municipal Court op Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014what is extent of abolition of formalities in pleading. While the formalities of pleading have been abolished by statute, it is still the law in the Municipal Court that a party is. limited in his evidence to the claim he has made.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 400 \u2014what evidence not admissible in suit for breach of warranty. In a suit for damages for breach of warranty in the sale of an automobile, where the only warranty proved was that the car was guaranteed for life against' any defect in manufacture or workmanship, evidence that the automobile was defective in design and plan of construction, and that the life of an ordinary automobile was at least two years, was incompetent.\n4. Sales, \u00a7 236 \u2014what not warranty. Where an automobile which was sold was warranted against defects in manufacture, an agreement by the seller to overhaul the ear without cost after a trip was not part of the warranty but a special agreement.\n5. Sales, \u00a7 263 \u2014what is extent of warranty where automobile is sold. Where an automobile is warranted against any defect in \u201cmanufacture and workmanship,\u201d the word \u201cmanufacture\u201d evidently refers to the process of converting the raw materials into finished parts for use in the automobile, and the word \u201cworkmanship\u201d evidently refers to the character of the work done by workmen in the factory.\n6. Sales, \u00a7 400 \u2014what evidence proper in suit for breach of warranty. In an action for damages for breach of warranty in the sale of an automobile, warranted against defects in manufacture and workmanship, evidence tending to prove that noise in the engine and other parts was due to improper fitting of the several parts was improperly excluded.\n7. Sales, \u00a7 401 \u2014token question for jury arises in suit for breach of warranty. In an action for damages for breach of warranty in the sale of an automobile, warranted against defects in manufacture, evidence tending to prove that the tires were defective warranted a submission to the jury of such question.\n8. Parties, \u00a7 31 \u2014what does not constitute change of parties. Where a suit was brought against \u201cRenault Freres Selling Branch\u201d and it appeared that there were two corporations of the same name, and the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim adding the words, \u201c\u00c1 New York corporation,\u201d and procured another writ which was served upon the agent of the foreign corporation, there was no change of parties, but merely a wrong service in the first place, and the amendment did not change the name of the defendant or substitute a different defendant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William A. Jennings, for appellant.",
      "Burry, Johnstone & Peters, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William T. Warren, Appellant, v. Renault Freres Selling Branch, Appellee.\nGen. No. 20,831.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 398 \u2014what not recoverable in action for breach of warranty. In a suit for damages for breach of warranty in the sale of an automobile, evidence that the defendant failed to overhaul the car without expense as agreed was incompetent, since there was no averment in the statement of claim of liability for failure to make repairs without cost and the plaintiff did not amend his pleading.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed October 6, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nSuit by William T. Warren against the Renault Freres Selling Branch, a New York corporation, to recover damages for breach of warranty in the sale of an automobile. A verdict was directed in favor of the defendant, and upon entry of judgment the plaintiff brought this appeal.\nWilliam A. Jennings, for appellant.\nBurry, Johnstone & Peters, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0117-01",
  "first_page_order": 143,
  "last_page_order": 144
}