delivered the opinion of the-court.
Grandt v. Kirkeby-Grunderstrup Seed Co., 185 Ill. App. 312 (1914)
March 9, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 18,695
185 Ill. App. 312
Fred Grandt, Defendant in Error, v. Kirkeby-Grunderstrup Seed Company, Plaintiff in Error.
Gen. No. 18,695.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John D. Tubnbaugh, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1912.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed March 9, 1914.
.Statement of the Case.
Action by Fred Grandt against Kirkeby-Grunderstrup Seed Company to recover damages for breach of *313a contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant, where defendant agreed to purchase plaintiff’s entire onion crop raised from seeds purchased of defendant. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $147.42, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Municipal Couet of Chicago, § 26 * —sufficiency of statement of facts. A so-called “brief statement of the facts appearing upon the trial,” etc., held not such a certificate as contemplated by section 23 of the Municipal Court Act, J. & A. f 3335, and held that if considered as a bill of exceptions it contained no certificate and raised no presumption that the evidence recited in it was all the evidence heard upon the trial.
2. Sales, § 158 * —when purchaser liable for contract price of onion crop frozen pending delivery. In an action to recover for the contract price of onions, it appeared that the defendant agreed to purchase plaintiff’s entire onion crop at a certain price, that defendant postponed delivery of the onions until he should notify plaintiff, that plaintiff stored what he could in his cellar and that those he had no room for therein or elsewhere were frozen, and that there was no market for onions where the plaintiff lived. Held that a finding of the trial court that defendant was liable for the contract price of the onions which were frozen but that plaintiff could not recover for those which were stored in the cellar, as he should have tried to reduce the damages .by finding a market for them, will not be disturbed.
Charles Daniels, for plaintiff in error.
Fred A. Bathje and Charles E. Lot, for defendant in error.