{
  "id": 2927434,
  "name": "Mrs. Barbara Davis, Appellee, v. Mitchell Automobile Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Mitchell Automobile Co.",
  "decision_date": "1917-06-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,936",
  "first_page": "30",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 30"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 1845,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "sha256": "cb5445be91cf5eea6b30256436685e4a5f731c6b0425521734ad008e66f5dc32",
    "simhash": "1:c874c48c500d80dc",
    "word_count": 303
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mrs. Barbara Davis, Appellee, v. Mitchell Automobile Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Pbesiding Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 356* \u2014 when evidence as to returning of car if unsatisfactory and refunding of payment is admissible. Evidence that on the delivery of a car, bought under a written contract which provided that if the car was not as represented the deposit would be returned, the agent delivering it to the purchaser said that if the car was not satisfactory it could be returned and the initial payment demanded by him thereon would be refunded is admissible, not to vary the contract but as showing that by receiving the car the purchaser did not admit that the car was satisfactory nor that the contract had been performed on the seller\u2019s part.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 356* \u2014 when evidence supports verdict. In an action to recover back the purchase price of an automobile, evidence held to support a verdict for plaintiff.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Pbesiding Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. W. Clabk and G-. D. Wellington, for appellant.",
      "West & Eckhabt, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mrs. Barbara Davis, Appellee, v. Mitchell Automobile Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 21,936.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 322 \u2014 when parol inadmissible to vary written contract. A written contract for the sale of an article cannot be varied by evidence of a subsequent parol agreement for which there was no consideration.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the- Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 27, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Mrs. Barbara Davis, plaintiff, against the Mitchell Automobile Company, defendant, to recover the purchase price of an automobile sold by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nE. W. Clabk and G-. D. Wellington, for appellant.\nWest & Eckhabt, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0030-01",
  "first_page_order": 56,
  "last_page_order": 57
}