*1 Dayton Company, Scale Plaintiff in Error, vs. General Market Company, House Defendant Error. June 19, in error. & SEEDER, for plaintiff Goldman Ralph counsel,) Greene, Rosen, (William error. this opinion: reported Mr. Commissioner Partlow began the Dayton Company, Scale Chicago in the suit to recover House Company, Market General ma- meat-slicing and four three the value Peter Golas in error to were sold chines, by plaintiff later sales under a conditional error under defendant in came into *2 court without of There was a ownership. rendered defendant was jury,.judgment for for reversed by which was $510, in entered in that and was the First District comes error for costs. case favor of defendant in of certiorari. this court a writ upon in the meat and restaurant Peter Golas engaged he 25, 1924, gave business in On Chicago. September two of scales in error for written order to he was to for which pay and two meat-grinders, $690 in- which were evidenced monthly eighteen payments, The order stallment notes. provided purchase of should at thereon, less price, any option payments the re- due the seller become and immediately payable upon tendered, when fusal accept equipment of.the execute the notes or to make cash or to any payment, the seller was au- make thereon. default payment Upon of the thorized to take immediate property possession retain as rental for the use thereof payments remain the of was to property thereon. equipment for was it, until the or any judgment paid. price, written Golas another order 8, On January 1925, gave and four slicing- in error for one pair he in sixteen monthly for which was machines, pay $1290 order contained same provisions installments. This were delivered to Golas and he the first one. The goods and defaulted in each April, made six payments $90 and the last He again September, began paying 1925. He made in claimed December, payment that one of his customers went into he “hard up” him error never took owing bankruptcy $1200. November, of the came 1926, possession into possession error under claim of ownership.
Plaintiff in error proved the default of Golas, the by defendant er- ror, and its value at time latter obtained possession. Defendant in error offered to that on 29,, April Golas executed a chattel Milstin Morris on all mortgage of his goods, equipment fixtures, including prop- erty question, on the same was filed day that Milstin record; foreclosed mortgage, prop- was sold erty bailiff court, who executed a bill of sale for the same to M. Benjamin Schim- elfarb on November 8, that on the 1926; day same Schimel- farb executed a bill sale to on Novem- Levee, Samuel J. ber 15, 1926, executed a bill sale to Levee and that under the last bill of defend- $7500, sale ant error claims to be the free of owner *3 in error. The trial court plaintiff objection sustained an to all this offer. The Court held that the trial Appellate objection court was in error to this evidence. sustaining act of the Uniform (Smith’s Section Stat. Sales that by are sold p. 2435,) provides goods person iswho not the owner who sell them thereof and does not under the the with the consent of the owner, authority better the the no title than to acquires goods unless the owner of the his conduct had, by goods pre- the to Under from seller’s sell. authority cluded denying tending this section the evidence offered competent its conduct to error had precluded plaintiff prove the to sell. authority from seller’s itself denying the Court held that evidence offered was The Appellate the and that error, excluded on motion plaintiff would have that defendant error the to assume had right to it make; plaintiff offered the proof to this object assumption inwas error position in er- error was chargeable that the plaintiff reason the objection ror’s that the effect objection; improper went to force the evidence offered probative consti- tantamount to a contention that such evidence tuted no court held that plain- defense to the action. The tiff in lost title to conduct without an innocent being purchaser to a notice of the claim was entitled plaintiff the trial that a waived and judgment; been jury having juris- Court had been before the having court, court should diction enter which the trial judgment re- have court was entered, judgment versed Court was rendered in in favor in error costs. of defendant in evidence the chattel
When defendant in error offered there- and offered to acts subsequent under had to do. in error as it objected, right plaintiff this objection. By sustained improperly the trial court excluded all evidence on the ruling question itself from whether or not in error had precluded entire the seller’s denying authority sell, held that defense in the case. When re- it should have this evidence was excluded improperly If the evi- remanded the cause. versed the dence offered had been admitted b^ then offer error would have had which tended to dence rebuttal it which was claimed acts alleged precluded explain was sustained objection from When recovering. excluded, but was not only the main defense evidence on Court plaintiff the Appellate *4 to recover. might was barred of Court based judg- on which The evidence that court before opportunity ment was not properly all to introduce to the had been parties given Where a point dispute. have on dence they all of without a jury the court tried by cause is 346 is in the
evidence record, reverse may and enter such a as the should have entered on the evidence admitted. (Manistee Co. v. Bank, Lumber Union Nat. Ill. But this 490.) rule only the evidence is before applies court and where the parties opportunity present all of their evidence. Court and of the judgments be will reversed and cause remanded to the trial
court.
Per Mr. foregoing opinion reported Curiam: Commissioner Partlow is hereby adopted opinion entered in accordance therewith. remanded. Reversed and Township High George et vs. F. al. Appellants, Smith et al. Appellees. District No. School June