David v. May

Appellate Court of Illinois

David v. May

195 Ill. App. 549

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 21, 1915

DocketGen. No. 20,504

StatusPublished

This text of 195 Ill. App. 549 (David v. May) 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

David v. May, 195 Ill. App. 549 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Trover and conversion, § 38*—when evidence as to disbursement of money erroneously excluded. In an action to recover for conversion of money alleged to have been procured from plaintiff by false representations, where it appeared that the money alleged to have been converted was a part payment on a subscription for stock in a bank which was never organized, and where the subscription agreement contained a provision that a proportion of such amount might be used for organization purposes, evidence that money had been disbursed for organization purposes by defendants held erroneously excluded. 3. Assumpsit, § 50*—when action for money had and received lies upon failure of consideration. A person who pays money for shares in a company which never comes into existence pays it on a consideration which fails, and may recover such amount in an'action of money had and received unless it be shown that he has consented to or acquiesced in the application made of such money by those into whose hands it comes.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Trover and conversion, § 38*—when evidence as to disbursement of money erroneously excluded. In an action to recover for conversion of money alleged to have been procured from plaintiff by false representations, where it appeared that the money alleged to have been converted was a part payment on a subscription for stock in a bank which was never organized, and where the subscription agreement contained a provision that a proportion of such amount might be used for organization purposes, evidence that money had been disbursed for organization purposes by defendants held erroneously excluded. 3. Assumpsit, § 50*—when action for money had and received lies upon failure of consideration. A person who pays money for shares in a company which never comes into existence pays it on a consideration which fails, and may recover such amount in an'action of money had and received unless it be shown that he has consented to or acquiesced in the application made of such money by those into whose hands it comes.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 Ill. App. 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-may-illappct-1915.