delivered the opinion of the court.
Wendnagel v. Houston, 186 Ill. App. 39 (1914)
April 21, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 19,382
186 Ill. App. 39
William Wendnagel et al., copartners as Wendnagel & Company, Appellees, v. George T. Houston et al., copartners as George T. Houston & Company, Appellants.
Gen. No. 19,382.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Sullivan, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 21, 1914.
*40Statement of the Case.
Action by William Wendnagel and Eugene Wendnagel, copartners trading as Wendnagel & Company, against George T. Houston and Frank B. Houston, copartners trading as George T. Houston & Company, to recover damages for breach of contract in failing to deliver certain lumber which the defendant sold and agreed to deliver to plaintiffs. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for nine hundred dollars, defendants appeal.
Jesse Holdom and Frederick H. Wickett, for appellants; Jesse Holdom, of counsel.
Adams, Crews, Bobb & Westcott, for appellees.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Sales, § 373 * —when judgment for price sustained by the evidence. In an action for breach of a contract to deliver lumber sold by defendant to plaintiff, a judgment in favor of plaintiff held sustained by the evidence.
2. Appeal and error, § 1514 * —when remarles of counsel not prejudicial error. In an action for damages resulting from failure of defendant to deliver lumber under a contract, where the nondelivery of the lumber was conceded, remarks of counsel for the plaintiff in his closing argument to the jury as to the question why the lumber was not delivered, held not prejudicial error where objection to the remarks was sustained and the remarks were stricken out.
3. Appeal and error, § 1514*^iv7¡,e«. statement by counsel as to what he proposed to show by witness not prejudicial. In an action for damages for breach of a contract to deliver lumber sold to plaintiff, a statement by counsel for the plaintiff on asking a question of a witness that he proposed to show by the witness that a certain person connected with the defendants admitted the value of the lumber was more than the contract price, held not prejudicial error where objections were sustained to the questions and offer.