{
  "id": 2452658,
  "name": "Atlas Furniture Company v. E. S. Higgins Carpet Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Atlas Furniture Co. v. E. S. Higgins Carpet Co.",
  "decision_date": "1897-08-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "19",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 17"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "119 Ill. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2901901
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/119/0352-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 4606,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08099680714976047
    },
    "sha256": "74eb3700678956c511345dcb2bbb1c3dae63948ac280e2069ee35d916a8e1a5a",
    "simhash": "1:254959723b810172",
    "word_count": 781
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:26.715064+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Atlas Furniture Company v. E. S. Higgins Carpet Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Sears\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis suit was brought partly upon promissory note, and partly upon open account to recover the purchase price of carpets sold by appellee, a manufacturer, to appellant a retailer.\nThe defense was breach of warranty as to quality of goods sold. \"\nThe amount sued for, the contract price of the goods, was $1,398.04. The verdict rendered by appellee was for $900 only. It is thus apparent that the jury found upon the issue of warranty and breach thereof in favor of appellant.\nThe only complaint of appellant is, in substance, that the damages awarded for such breach of warranty were inadequate.\nThe points, as presented to the trial court upon appellant\u2019s motion for a new trial, and considered here as assignments of error, are:\n1st. That the amount of the verdict is not supported by the evidence.\n2d. That defendant\u2019s (appellant\u2019s) refused instructions, numbers 2 and 3, should have been given.\n3d. That plaintiff\u2019s (appellees) second instruction should not have been given.\nThe evidence presented by appellant to establish damages resulting from breach of warranty, was perhaps sufficient to support the conclusion of the jury as to inferior quality of the goods, but was lacking in any definiteness as to amount of damages resulting.\nA portion of the goods were returned to appellant by its customers. \u25a0 Warren C. Hoyes testified that of one shipment, 720 yards of carpet were returned by customers. Much complaint is made of loss of trade by reason thereof; but aside from this speculative damage there is scant evidence as to how much in dollars and cents appellant was damnified.\nJohnson testified that the carpets were of no value \u201c to our trade.\u201d\nWarren Hoyes testified that there is no market value for such carpets, and said, \u201cWe could use all that came back but we got very little for them.\u201d\nHow much appellant received for them is nowhere disclosed.\nHe also testified that \u201c speaking of their relative value as they came to the office first and when they came back \u201d (returned by customers), the value was about one-third.\nCharles Noyes testified that they were not worth anything \u201c to our house.\u201d\nMoran testified that carpets, such as the one exhibited to him, would not have any value.\nThere was testimony that one of the worst of the carpets in question, after having been returned by a customer, was \u2022 sold at thirty cents per yard. What the purchase price of that particular carpet was, when sold to appellant, does not appear.\nFrom such evidence the jury could not accurately measure the damage.\nIf the appellee complained here of the lack of definite evidence to support the award of damages by the jury for breach of warranty, we would be compelled to seriously question its sufficiency. But appellant, if it has received that which was not warranted by the evidence and has been deprived of nothing to which it was entitled under the evidence, can not be heard to complain.\nThe second instruction for appellant refused, related only to the issue of warranty and breach thereof. Upon that issue the jury found for appellant, and hence no prejudice could have resulted to it from the refusal.\nThe third instruction presented by appellant, and refused, incorrectly states the rule as to measure of damages, in that it substituted actual worth at the time of purchase for market value at time and place of delivery. Carpenter v. First Nat\u2019l Bank, 119 Ill. 352.\nThe second instruction given for appellee can not be complained of, for it relates only to the issue of warranty and the verdict is conclusive that appellant was not harmed.\nNo error is presented which could have worked prejudice to appellant.\nThe judgment is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Sears"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert NT. Eastman, attorney for appellant.",
      "Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Atlas Furniture Company v. E. S. Higgins Carpet Company.\n1. Measure of Damages\u2014For Defects in the Quality of Goods Sold.\u2014 Where goods sold prove not to be of the quality bargained for, the purchaser is entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the market value of the goods at the time and place of delivery.\n2. Instructions\u2014Error Without Injury.\u2014A party to a suit can not complain, on appeal, of the giving or refusal of instructions on an issue upon which the jury found in his favor, as the verdict is conclusive that he was not harmed.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note and on the common counts. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed August 5, 1897.\nAlbert NT. Eastman, attorney for appellant.\nMoses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 15,
  "last_page_order": 17
}