Bowen v. Dutton

Illinois Supreme Court

Bowen v. Dutton

27 Ill. 515

DecidedApril 15, 1862

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Ill. 515 (Bowen v. Dutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowen v. Dutton, 27 Ill. 515 (Ill. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

This is strictly a question upon the evidence, and we do not feel inclined to disturb the finding of the court, even though there may be some doubt as to which way the judgment should have been. There was certainly evidence to sustain the finding. Taking the testimony of Little and Madge, and the plaintiff’s case was sustained. Their testimony shows a personal understanding by the defendant to deliver her the goods on being paid twenty-five dollars which he had advanced for her. This agreement he refused to fulfill when she offered to pay him that amount. And this breach of that agreement afforded a cause of action. That promise was made for a consideration to himself, which made the promise a personal one, no matter to whom the goods, in fact, belonged. Mrs. Allen contradicts these witnesses, but we will not reverse the judgment because the court still believed them. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Caton, C. J.

This is strictly a question upon the evidence, and we do not feel inclined to disturb the finding of the court, even though there may be some doubt as to which way the judgment should have been. There was certainly evidence to sustain the finding. Taking the testimony of Little and Madge, and the plaintiff’s case was sustained. Their testimony shows a personal understanding by the defendant to deliver her the goods on being paid twenty-five dollars which he had advanced for her. This agreement he refused to fulfill when she offered to pay him that amount. And this breach of that agreement afforded a cause of action. That promise was made for a consideration to himself, which made the promise a personal one, no matter to whom the goods, in fact, belonged. Mrs. Allen contradicts these witnesses, but we will not reverse the judgment because the court still believed them. The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Ill. 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowen-v-dutton-ill-1862.