
    Mrs. Louis A. Herbert, Appellee, v. W. C. Mahon Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,430.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Sales, § 282
      
       — when evidence warrants finding as to implied warranty. Evidence held to justify a finding of an implied warranty that a sealskin coat purchased by plaintiff from defendant would be reasonably fit for the purposes for which it was bought.
    2. Sales, § 282* — when shown that defect in coat could not have leen detected prior to delivery. In an action by the purchaser of a sealskin coat to recover the purchase price paid on account of defects in the dyes used, evidence held to sustain the findings of the trial court that an examination of the coat by plaintiff prior to its delivery to her was not sufficient to have enabled her to discover the defect.
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 14, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Mrs. Louis A. Herbert, plaintiff, against W. C. Mahon Company, defendant, to recover the amount paid for a sealskin coat purchased by plaintiff f^om defendant on the ground that the dyes used on the skins were defective. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    D. H. Mann and M. J. Sullivan, for appellant.
    Walter H. Eckert, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, SI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Sales, § 141 — when seller liable for negligence in selection of articles. In an action by the purchaser of a sealskin coat to recover the purchase price paid thereon on account of defects in the dyes used, even though defendant’s contention, that as the sale was one of a specified article under its patent or trade name there could be no implied warranty of its fitness for any particular purpose, was conceded, defendant might still be held liable for negligence in its selection of the articles delivered.  