Russell v. Sycamore Marsh Harvester Manufacturing Co.

Citations

• 65 Ill. 333

Syllabus

<p>1. Hew Trial—on the finding from evidence. Where the evidence is conflicting and pretty evenly balanced, and the issues fairly submitted to the jury on proper instructions, the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed.</p> <p>2. EvLDErrcE. Where the defendant, when sued on a warranty, sought to exonerate himself, by showing he made the contract as agent for the company, whose president he was, and testified, without objection, as to the fact of his agency: Held, that the refusal of the court to allow him to testify that he collected the money due under the contract for the company was not erroneous, as it could not have added any weight to what he had already sworn to, and because the question for the jury was not so much whether he was agent, as whether he made the contract in that capacity.</p> <p>3. In the same case, the plaintiff proved by a witness that defendant said plaintiff was getting a roof with the same warranty that A got. The witness also testified that A told him defendant was to warrant his work for five years. The defendant then offered in evidence the written warranty sent to A, to show that the warranty was by his company, which the court refused to admit. The warranty was not dated, and it was doubtful if it was not sent subsequently to the time of the conversation with the witness. The circumstances indicated that the words, “ the same warranty that A got,” referred to the character of the warranty, and not to the ¡3er-son making it: Held, that the ruling of the court was not erroneous.</p>