#### David W. Mankowitz, Defendant in Error, v. Kersten Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,233.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La Buy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 18, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by David W. Mankowitz, plaintiff, against the Kersten Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the failure of the defendant to deliver certain metal purchased by plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiff for $67.75, upon trial by the court, defendant brings error.

Otto C. Rentner, for plaintiff in error. ■

Fred F. Weinman and Jacob Kaplan, for defendant in error.

Abstract of the Decision.

Sales, § 373 * —when evidence sufficient to sustain verdict in action for damages for nondelivery of goods. In an action by the purchaser of merchandise to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the failure of the seller to make delivery, evidence held sufficient to show that plaintiff had proved his case by a preponderance of the evidence, and that he had .sustained damage for the amount claimed.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.