Alabama Marble Co. v. Stevens

Appellate Court of Illinois

Alabama Marble Co. v. Stevens

205 Ill. App. 405

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 18, 1917

DocketGen. No. 21,838

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 405 (Alabama Marble Co. v. Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alabama Marble Co. v. Stevens, 205 Ill. App. 405 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Principal and agent, § 223*—when burden is on plaintiff of proving receipt of money by agent. In an action brought to recover under a contract for services rendered and materials furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant as agent of the owner of a building for a certain sum to be paid by the defendant, and providing that no money should he due under the contract until the defendant had received such money from the owner, where the statement of claim set up such contract and defendant’s affidavit of merits set up that no money had been paid by the owner of the building, held that such affidavit did not set up a plea in the nature of confession and avoidance hut was a direct traverse of a material part of plaintiff’s cause of action, and put the burden upon plaintiff of proving that the defendant had received such money.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Principal and agent, § 223*—when burden is on plaintiff of proving receipt of money by agent. In an action brought to recover under a contract for services rendered and materials furnished by the plaintiff for the defendant as agent of the owner of a building for a certain sum to be paid by the defendant, and providing that no money should he due under the contract until the defendant had received such money from the owner, where the statement of claim set up such contract and defendant’s affidavit of merits set up that no money had been paid by the owner of the building, held that such affidavit did not set up a plea in the nature of confession and avoidance hut was a direct traverse of a material part of plaintiff’s cause of action, and put the burden upon plaintiff of proving that the defendant had received such money.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alabama-marble-co-v-stevens-illappct-1917.