{ "id": 3161177, "name": "The Peoria Grape Sugar Company v. Henry D. Turney et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Peoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Turney", "decision_date": "1898-10-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "631", "last_page": "634", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "175 Ill. 631" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "70 Ill. App. 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5250457 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/70/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Gratt. 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gratt.", "case_ids": [ 6732599 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/56/0962-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 Pa. St. 149", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1024528 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/68/0149-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Mass. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2146251 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/103/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 U. S. 306", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8299243 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/134/0306-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 360, "char_count": 5889, "ocr_confidence": 0.569, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.245885790068071e-07, "percentile": 0.957536520468954 }, "sha256": "bdd9168a9b6c8196a4297e38c4172e20d4a33cdcc514addbb20df5d6be9f57d1", "simhash": "1:29db229e466d5c93", "word_count": 1036 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:59:41.206964+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The Peoria Grape Sugar Company v. Henry D. Turney et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Phillips\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe appellant purchased coal, under verbal contracts, from appellees during the months of December, 1893, and January, 1894, which was supplied from the Reed City coal mines. On February 1, 1894, the parties entered into a written contract, by which appellees were to furnish appellant its entire requirement of coal, which was from four to eight cars per day, for one year from date, at a price fixed in the contract. Two kinds of coal were to be furnished, viz., Reed City lump coal, and mixed nut, pea and slack made from the lump so taken. Payments were to be made for the coal on or before the 20th of the month next following shipment. Coal was supplied under both the verbal and written contracts, which was not paid for. Appellees then brought suit and recovered judgment.\nThe defense interposed was made under the general issue and notice of set-off. The main defense was, as stated by appellant\u2019s counsel, that the coal delivered was sold under an express warranty as to its steam-producing qualities, of which there was a breach, with resultant damages, which, it is complained, were not allowed. This defense raised a question of fact, which was passed on by the jury, affirmed by the Appellate Court and is conclusive here.\nBut it is said that court misconceived the scope of appellant\u2019s contention with regard to the grounds relied on for reversal, which, it is said, were, \u201cthat the coal delivered was not in fact Reed City lump coal, nor mixed nut, pea and slack made therefrom, as provided in the contract, but was an inferior grade of coal,\u201d for which no proper allowance was made. Whether the coal delivered was in fact the kind of coal contracted for was a matter of fact, necessarily passed upon by the two courts that have considered this case, which is conclusive. The facts having been determined against appellant, made it liable to pay for the coal without unreasonable or vexatious delay. Whether there was such delay was properly submitted to the jury as a fact.\nComplaint is also made of instructions 1 and 2, which told the jury there was no warranty of the coal to be furnished under the contract of February 1, 1894. The contract itself does not express a warranty of the coal, in which case none is implied. (Benjamin on Sales,\u20143d ed.\u2014sec. 621; DeWitt v. Berry, 134 U. S. 306.) But the court did expressly modify those instructions by reference therein to another instruction, which in effect told the jury that if the sale of February 1 was based on coal that had been furnished prior thereto, then it should be equal in character and grade to that before furnished, and if it was not, then damages should be allowed, etc. This was all the appellant could fairly ask, and the reference to such modifying instruction was so plain that the jury could not have been misled.\nIt is also urged the words \u201cReed City lump coal,\u201d in the contract, raised an implied warranty of the quality of the coal, independently of the kind of coal before furnished. Those' words designated a certain kind of coal known in commercial trade and with which appellant was familiar, as it had used it prior thereto. Therefore, it having\" contracted for that kind of coal, if it received what it had contracted for there was no implied warranty. The common law is tersely stated in the English \u201cSale of Goods act,\u201d under rule 14, \u201cthat in the case of a contract for the sale of a specific article under its patent or other trade name there is no implied contract as to its fitness for any particular purpose,\u201d for the reason, as stated in the authorities, that \u201can undertaking as to fitness is not implied where the buyer gets what he bargained for.\u201d 1 Parsons on Contracts, (7th ed.) 586, 587; Gossler v. Eagle Sugar Refinery, 103 Mass. 331; Port Carbon Iron Co. v. Groves, 68 Pa. St. 149; Mason v. Chappel, 15 Gratt. 572; Benjamin on Principles of Sales,yule 18, p. 47, which contains the English \u201cSale of Goods act,\u201d the same being declaratory of the common law.\nThe criticism of instruction No. 1, that it ignored the obligation of appellees to furnish \u201clump coal,\u201d is hypercritical. The contract called for Reed City coal of two different \u25a0 kinds,\u2014lump, and mixed nut, pea and slack made from lump taken by appellant. The instruction necessarily covered both kinds of coal mentioned in the contract, and not one to the exclusion of the other.\nThe criticism of the second instruction, that it assumed the coal mentioned in the invoice was mined at Reed City, is not sound. It left the fact to be found by the jury that such coal was mined at Reed City. The instruction might have been differently arranged, but that is the necessary purport of the language used.\nThere are some other objections urged as reasons for the reversal of the judgment, but they are not deemed to be well taken.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Phillips" } ], "attorneys": [ "Page, We ad & Ross, for appellant.", "Runnells & Burry, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The Peoria Grape Sugar Company v. Henry D. Turney et al.\nOpinion filed October 24, 1898.\n1. Appeals and errors\u2014whether goods furnished, were those contracted for is a question of fact. In a suit at law to recover the price of coal furnished under a contract, the question whether the coal delivered was the kind called for in the contract is a question of fact conclusively settled by the judgment of the Appellate Court.\n2. Warranty\u2014when warranty of quality cannot be implied. A contract calling for the delivery of a certain kind of coal designated by its trade name carries no implied warranty of its fitness for any purpose, or of its quality, other than that it be the kind specified.\nPeoria Grape Sugar Co. v. Turney, 70 Ill. App. 589, affirmed.\nAppeal from, the Appellate Court for the Second District;\u2014heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. T. M. Shaw, Judge, presiding.\nPage, We ad & Ross, for appellant.\nRunnells & Burry, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0631-01", "first_page_order": 631, "last_page_order": 634 }