The word command means "To have control of" (Webster's International Dictionary 2d Ed.). The cases uniformly hold that the purchaser cannot show ability by depending upon third persons in no way bound to furnish the funds. ( Welch v. New York, C. ST. L.R. Co., 5 Ill. App.2d 568, 126 N.E.2d 165.) A purchaser without the ability to finance the purchase is no purchaser at all.

" [Emphasis supplied.] Thus the jury was allowed to focus on an item not in issue. In support, plaintiff cites Welch v. New York, C. St. L.R. Co., 5 Ill. App.2d 568, 126 N.E.2d 165 (1955), at page 576: "The peremptory instruction was properly refused, because there was no evidence upon which to base any conclusion that plaintiff failed to operate properly the hand brake. . . . Instructions must be based upon evidence."

[6-9] Questions of a defendant's negligence and of a plaintiff's contributory negligence are ordinarily questions of fact to be decided by the jury if there is any evidence to support a finding of negligence and a finding of freedom from contributory negligence. (Blue v. St. Clair Country Club, 7 Ill.2d 359). In the case before us it is obvious that Missouri Pacific Railroad had a duty to use ordinary care to inspect its railroad cars to see that the cars were reasonably safe before delivering them to the consignee (Waldron v. Director General of Railroads, 266 Fed. 196). If the jury believed the testimony of plaintiff alone concerning the failure of a hand brake to stop or slow the Missouri Pacific coal car as he was going down the incline, then sufficient evidence was presented to justify the submission of the case to the jury (Welch v. N.Y., Chicago St. Louis Ry. Co., 5 Ill. App.2d 568). The question of whether or not the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence was, under the facts in this case, peculiarly one for the jury.

These authorities, we think, can be readily distinguished from the instant case. [5] In the case at bar the fact that the cars were found standing with their brakes set where Selby had left them does not necessarily tend to prove that the hand brake was not inefficient. (See Donnelly v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 342 Ill. App. 556, aff'd 412 Ill. 115; Welch v. New York, C. St. L.R. Co., 5 Ill. App.2d 568.) Defendant further contends that the words "bad brake" uttered by decedent shortly after his collapse should be construed as "bad break."