{
  "id": 3021875,
  "name": "Mrs. Louis A. Herbert, Appellee, v. W. C. Mahon Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Herbert v. W. C. Mahon Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-05-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,430",
  "first_page": "297",
  "last_page": "298",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 297"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2152,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "sha256": "b5cdf7f43f353f3031f01e1171efdd0689b9d045b8ca02c6ee79145d5f6fbc3b",
    "simhash": "1:cd79c7a5d82f545c",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mrs. Louis A. Herbert, Appellee, v. W. C. Mahon Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Matchett\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Sales, \u00a7 141 \u2014 when seller liable for negligence in selection of articles. In an action by the purchaser of a sealskin coat to recover the purchase price paid thereon on account of defects in the dyes used, even though defendant\u2019s contention, that as the sale was one of a specified article under its patent or trade name there could be no implied warranty of its fitness for any particular purpose, was conceded, defendant might still be held liable for negligence in its selection of the articles delivered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Matchett"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "D. H. Mann and M. J. Sullivan, for appellant.",
      "Walter H. Eckert, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mrs. Louis A. Herbert, Appellee, v. W. C. Mahon Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,430.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Sales, \u00a7 282 \u2014 when evidence warrants finding as to implied warranty. Evidence held to justify a finding of an implied warranty that a sealskin coat purchased by plaintiff from defendant would be reasonably fit for the purposes for which it was bought.\n2. Sales, \u00a7 282* \u2014 when shown that defect in coat could not have leen detected prior to delivery. In an action by the purchaser of a sealskin coat to recover the purchase price paid on account of defects in the dyes used, evidence held to sustain the findings of the trial court that an examination of the coat by plaintiff prior to its delivery to her was not sufficient to have enabled her to discover the defect.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 14, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Mrs. Louis A. Herbert, plaintiff, against W. C. Mahon Company, defendant, to recover the amount paid for a sealskin coat purchased by plaintiff f^om defendant on the ground that the dyes used on the skins were defective. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nD. H. Mann and M. J. Sullivan, for appellant.\nWalter H. Eckert, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, SI 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": "0297-01",
  "first_page_order": 351,
  "last_page_order": 352
}
