Linton v. Porter, 31 Ill. 107 (1863)

April 1863 · Illinois Supreme Court
31 Ill. 107
William Linton v. Mary Ann Porter

William Linton v. Mary Ann Porter.

1. Consideration — what is good, etc. — want of consideration. A sale and delivery of personal property is a good consideration for a note given therefor, although the seller had no title ; and the purchaser cannot, while he retains the possession of the property, defeat a recovery upon the note upon a plea of want of consideration.

■ 2. Implied warranty op title — sales of personalty. Upon the sale of personal property there is an implied warranty of title, and if, in such case, the rightful owner shall take the property out of the possession of such purchaser, he may recover its value upon that warranty.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. YaN H. HiggiNS, Judge, presiding.

The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

Messrs,. "WalKEb & Thomas, for the appellant.

Messrs. Waed, StaNeoed & AieeN, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Bbeese

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action brought before a justice of the peace on a promissory note made by the appellant to the appellee, the plaintiff below, and judgment for her. On appeal to the Superior Court of Chicago, the judgment was affirmed.

The defense was, want of consideration.

The facts are, that the plaintiff’s husband died possessed of an iron pile hammer, which the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, receiving the note in suit in payment therefor.

The hammer is in defendant’s possession, and the sale and delivery to him, was a good consideration for the note. The plaintiff, by her sale of the hammer, impliedly warranted the title to it, and if.it shall be taken out of the possession of the defendant, he can recover its value on this warranty.

*108It would be great injustice to allow this defense, and at the same time allow the defendant to keep the hammer. Having undisturbed and unquestioned possession of the hammer, he must pay the note. He cannot be allowed to repudiate his note, and keep the property also.

The judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.