Thorne v. McVeagh

Citations

• 75 Ill. 81

Syllabus

<p>1. Warranty—no particular form of words necessary to. It has been repeatedly held by this court that no particular form of wprds is necessary to constitute a warranty on the sale of personal property. It is a question of intention from the words used, the circumstances and the subject matter, for the jury to consider.</p> <p>2. Same—measure of damages. Where a lot of hams was sold in Chicago with a warranty that they were first class, the purchaser not seeing them, and the seller knowing that they were bought for a customer of the purchaser, in Salt Lake City, under a contract with the latter, and the seller shipped them to Salt Lake City for the purchaser, the latter paying the freight, and the hams proved to be not of the quality represented, but of a poor and inferior quality, so that the purchaser lost the benefit of his resale : Held, in an action by the purchaser for a breach of the warranty, that the true measure of damages was the difference between the price paid at Chicago and what they were worth when delivered, and also the freight on the same from Chicago to Salt Lake City, and the profits which might reasonably be expected on resale at the latter place.</p> <p>3. Instructions — must not ignore a particular ground of recovery presented by the pleadings. In a suit to recover for a breach of warranty in the sale of goods, when a portion of the counts in the declaration are upon an express warranty and the others upon an implied warranty, instructions for the defendant which wholly ignore all reference to an implied warranty will be rightfully refused.</p>