Pahlman v. King

Citations

• 49 Ill. 266

Syllabus

<p>1. Administratrix—in actions against—for breach of a parol contract made with the intestate—what plaintiff must prove—demand necessary. In an action against an administratrix to recover for the breach of a contract alleged to have been made with the intestate, in his life-time, by which the latter was to deliver to the plaintiff a certain quantity of coal at a specified price, and where the eon--tract alleged to have been made, so far as plaintiff was concerned, rested entirely in parol, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only a readiness £&& willingness to perform Ms part of the contract, but a demand on the defendant for the property contracted to be delivered.</p> <p>2. Contracts—-for the delivery of personal property—in actions for non-delivery —what must be shown,. In an action upon a contract for the non-delivery of the articles contracted for, where the obligations to pay and deliver are concurrent, ' in order to recover, the plaintiff must aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.</p> <p>3. Same—slight proof sufficient. And in such case, slight evidence of the fact will be sufficient, but some proof must be given. Hungate v. Rankin, 20 Ill. 641, and Hough v. Rawson, 17 ib. 688.</p> <p>4. Error—will not always reverse. This court will not award a new trial, merely on the ground that an improper instruction was given, where it appears, from the record, that substantial justice has been done.</p>