Farrell v. Stafford, 203 Ill. App. 357 (1917)

Feb. 7, 1917 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 21,204

203 Ill. App. 357

Julia Farrell, Defendant in Error, v. James W. Stafford, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,204.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Pledges—when pledged articles may not le sold without disclosing their nature. A pledgee of goods contained in a barrel, held under an agreement as security for a debt with authority to sell the goods if the debt is not paid at the time specified, is not justified in selling the barrel and its contents at auction without opening it and disclosing what its contents are.

2. Tboveb and convebsion, § 39 ^* —when evidence is sufficient to sustain finding as to value of goods. Evidence held to sustain the finding of the court as to the value of goods, in an action for their conversion.

3. Tboveb and convebsion, § 28 ^* —when tender of delt ly pledgor of goods is not condition precedent to maintenance of action for conversion. An action for the conversion of goods held by the defendant in pledge for a debt and improperly sold by him will lie without the plaintiff tendering in court the amount of the debt.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edmund K. J abecki, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 7, 1917.

Rehearing denied February 26, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Julia Farrell, plaintiff, against James W. Stafford, defendant, to recover damages for conversion of certain goods belonging to plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiff for $153.50, defendant brings error.

C. Yah Aleh Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Leo S. Le Bosky, for defendant in error.

* See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice G-oodwih

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Tboveb and convebsion, § 42 ^* —when finding for plaintiff on trial by court does not imply that punitive damages were allowed. The inclusion in the finding of the court for the plaintiff in an action for conversion that the defendant “maliciously, wilfully and intentionally, and with intent to injure and defraud the plaintiff” converted the goods does not imply that punitive damages were allowed.

5. Tboveb and convebsion, § 51 ^* —when tender of goods considered in mitigation of damages. The defendant to an action for conversion has the right to tender in open court the goods which have been converted and have such tender considered in mitigation of damages, but no such question arises where they were tendered as a full settlement of plaintiff’s claim.

6. Appeal and ebbob, § 1325 ^* —when presumed that court gave defendant credit for set-off in its finding. In the’ absence of any contrary showing, it must be assumed that the defendant was duly credited with a set-off claimed in the finding of the court in an action for damages for the conversion of goods.