Davis v. Mitchell Automobile Co., 207 Ill. App. 30 (1917)

June 27, 1917 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 21,936

207 Ill. App. 30

Mrs. Barbara Davis, Appellee, v. Mitchell Automobile Company, Appellant.

Gen. No. 21,936.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Evidence, § 322 ^* — when parol inadmissible to vary written contract. A written contract for the sale of an article cannot be varied by evidence of a subsequent parol agreement for which there was no consideration.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the- Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 27, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Mrs. Barbara Davis, plaintiff, against the Mitchell Automobile Company, defendant, to recover the purchase price of an automobile sold by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

E. W. Clabk and G-. D. Wellington, for appellant.

West & Eckhabt, for appellee.

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

Mb. Pbesiding Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Sales, § 356* — when evidence as to returning of car if unsatisfactory and refunding of payment is admissible. Evidence that on the delivery of a car, bought under a written contract which provided that if the car was not as represented the deposit would be returned, the agent delivering it to the purchaser said that if the car was not satisfactory it could be returned and the initial payment demanded by him thereon would be refunded is admissible, not to vary the contract but as showing that by receiving the car the purchaser did not admit that the car was satisfactory nor that the contract had been performed on the seller’s part.

3. Sales, § 356* — when evidence supports verdict. In an action to recover back the purchase price of an automobile, evidence held to support a verdict for plaintiff.