Clark v. Smith

88 Ill. 298
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1878·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The majority of the court are of the opinion that the proof in this record not only fails to show that Richards had authority to collect for Clark, but also think there is not evidence sufficient to support the proposition that Clark held Richards out to Smith as having such authority. While, perhaps, power to make contracts for the sale of goods upon a credit may be inferred from the letter of July 2, 1874, yet there is nothing in the letter from which authority to receive money in payment can properly be inferred. The verdict is not supported by the proofs, and the exception to the ruling of the court in refusing a new trial was well taken.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

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

Clark v. Smith, 88 Ill. 298 (Ill. 1878).

88 Ill. 298 (Clark v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lawrence Gas Co. v. Hawkeye Oil Co.
182 Iowa 179 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)
Peter Cooper's Glue Factory v. Devoe & Raynolds Co.
178 Ill. App. 298 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1913)
Good v. Arkin
147 Ill. App. 390 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1909)
Scarritt-Comstock Furniture Co. v. Hudspeth
1907 OK 130 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Williams v. Anderson & Co.
107 Ill. App. 32 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Smith v. Droubay
58 P. 1112 (Utah Supreme Court, 1899)
Crawford v. Whittaker
26 S.E. 516 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1896)
Clark v. Murphy
41 N.E. 674 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Simon & Son v. Johnson
101 Ala. 368 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
SIOUX CITY NURSERY & SEED CO. v. MAGNUS.
27 P. 257 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1891)
Bailey v. Pardridge
27 N.E. 89 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)
Thomas Kane & Co. v. Barstow
42 Kan. 465 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1889)
Meyer, Bannerman & Co. v. Stone & Co.
46 Ark. 210 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1885)
Janney v. Boyd
15 N.W. 308 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1883)
Crosby v. Hill
39 Ohio St. (N.S.) 100 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1883)
McKindly v. Dunham
13 N.W. 485 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)
Greenhood v. Keator
9 Ill. App. 183 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1881)