{
  "id": 2911024,
  "name": "John G. Craig, Appellee, v. August T. Pellet, trading as Pellet's Magneto Exchange, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Craig v. Pellet",
  "decision_date": "1918-01-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,276",
  "first_page": "368",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 368"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2313,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7574242167314315e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7094517865713407
    },
    "sha256": "a6e7b09b343aaa3fdc36c30969682d930ab68f47d8e26743f764ec23143cfdae",
    "simhash": "1:01ae44b3080d3084",
    "word_count": 397
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John G. Craig, Appellee, v. August T. Pellet, trading as Pellet\u2019s Magneto Exchange, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n5. Sales, \u00a7 252 \u2014when no implied warranty as to fitness for purpose prior to Uniform Sales Act. Prior to the Uniform Sales Act of 1915 [Callaghan\u2019s 1916 St. Supp. \u00b6 1021(4) et seq.J, where the purchaser of a specified appliance did not rely on the judgment or skill of the seller hut was as familiar with the appliance as the seller, there was no implied warranty by the seller that the appliance was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was bought.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown, Brown & Brown, for appellant.",
      "Joel C. Carlson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John G. Craig, Appellee, v. August T. Pellet, trading as Pellet\u2019s Magneto Exchange, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,276. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 351 \u2014when parol evidence inadmissible to explain contract. In an action to recover for breach of a contract for the sale of goods, the contract in question held complete as written and that parol evidence was not admissible to complete and explain it.\n2. Sales\u2014when no consideration for subsequent promise to remedy defect. An agreement by the seller of an appliance, made after the performance of the contract and after it was found that such appliance did not work properly, to correct the defect, does not bind the seller to cure any defects in the appliance, such agreement being without consideration.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 244*\u2014when warranties may be implied. Warranties may be implied in the case of a written contract for the sale of an article as well as where the contract is oral.\n4. Sales, \u00a7 243*\u2014what is effect of implied warranty. An implied warranty in the case of the sale of an article is an obligation imposed by law.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Cavekly, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed January 30, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John Gr. Craig, plaintiff, against August V. Pellet, trading as Pellet\u2019s Magneto Exchange, defendant, to recover for a breach of contract. Prom a judgment for plaintiff for $175, defendant appeals.\nBrown, Brown & Brown, for appellant.\nJoel C. Carlson, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0368-01",
  "first_page_order": 396,
  "last_page_order": 397
}