Tomlinson v. Earnshaw

Citations

• 112 Ill. 311

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—time to object—that an amendment of declaration was allowed after the verdict. The objection that the trial court allowed the ad damnum laid in a declaration to be amended after verdict, by increasing the amount, should first be made in that court on motion for a new trial, or the same can not properly come before this court.</p> <p>2. Amendment oe declaration—increasing ad damnum after verdict. There is no error in allowing an amendment of a declaration by increasing the ad damnum after verdict. Such an amendment relates to matter of form, rather than substance.</p> <p>3. Reversing, and remanding—with directions. It is not erroneous for the Appellate Court, upon reversing and remanding a cause, to direct the court below, upon a remittitur being made of so much of the judgment as is improper, to enter judgment for the balance of the verdict.</p> <p>4. Evidence—as to characteristics of a particular article contracted for as of the best quality. In a suit to recover the price of Aux Sable sandstone, sold under a contract to furnish the first quality of such stone, the defence being that all the stone delivered under the contract contained iron spots, it was held, that evidence on the part of the plaintiff tending to show that all Aux Sable stone contained iron spots, was material and admissible. The seller can not be held to furnish stone free of a blemish or defect common to all stone of the quality contracted to be furnished.</p>