Vogel v. Scott

Citations

• 66 Ill. 426

Syllabus

<p>1. Wabbanty&emdash;effect of a subsequent written guaranty. Where the purchaser of a lot of dried beef sued the vendor, upon an alleged warranty that the beef was of a certain quality, and there was a direct conflict in the evidence as to whether there was any warranty, the plaintiff offered evidence of a guaranty, written under the invoice by the vendor after the making of the contract, and signed by him: Held, that if such guaranty of the quality was signed in pursuance of the original contract, it was conclusive upon the rights of the parties, but if not so signed it could not strengthen the plaintiff’s cause.</p> <p>2. Same&emdash;instruction as to subsequent guaranty. In such case the court instructed the jury, that if they believed, from the evidence, that the defendant sold the plaintiff a quantity of dried beef hams, at, etc., and in consideration thereof gave his written warranty, as shown in the evidence, and there was a breach, to find for the plaintiff: Held, that the instruction was erroneous as being calculated to lead the jury to believe they might find for plaintiff on the subsequent written guaranty, independently of the question whether such guaranty was a part of the original contract.</p>