Flint Wagon Works v. Dalton

Appellate Court of Illinois

Flint Wagon Works v. Dalton

162 Ill. App. 576, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 653

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 29, 1911

DocketGen. No. 15,648

StatusPublished

This text of 162 Ill. App. 576 (Flint Wagon Works v. Dalton) 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

Flint Wagon Works v. Dalton, 162 Ill. App. 576, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 653 (Ill. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against the defendant in error, hereinafter called defendant, for the purchase price of six buggies, less fifty dollars paid thereon. The issues were submitted to a jury, who found for the defendant and judgment was entered on the verdict.

The only defense presented was that the plaintiff was a foreign corporation doing business in this state without qualifying under “An Act to regulate the admission of foreign corporations for profit to do business in the State of Illinois,” in force July 1, 1905. It was admitted on the trial that the plaintiff was a Michigan corporation and that it had not qualified to do business in this State under the said Act. The controversy, therefore, was over the question whether or not the plaintiff was doing business in this state within the meaning of the Act. The evidence on this issue tended to show that the plaintiff did business'in this state through its agents, Brownell Bros., at Peoria, Ill.; and we are not inclined to hold that the verdict on this question, the only one in issue, was clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. However that may be, we are precluded from any action other than affirming the case. On the issue in question certain stationery was produced at the trial, which was shown was furnished Brownell Bros. by the plaintiff; and testimony introduced pertaining to the wording and the use of the same in the conduct of said business. The stationery is not shown as an exhibit nor was it read into the record, and so we have not the evidence before us.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against the defendant in error, hereinafter called defendant, for the purchase price of six buggies, less fifty dollars paid thereon. The issues were submitted to a jury, who found for the defendant and judgment was entered on the verdict.

The only defense presented was that the plaintiff was a foreign corporation doing business in this state without qualifying under “An Act to regulate the admission of foreign corporations for profit to do business in the State of Illinois,” in force July 1, 1905. It was admitted on the trial that the plaintiff was a Michigan corporation and that it had not qualified to do business in this State under the said Act. The controversy, therefore, was over the question whether or not the plaintiff was doing business in this state within the meaning of the Act. The evidence on this issue tended to show that the plaintiff did business'in this state through its agents, Brownell Bros., at Peoria, Ill.; and we are not inclined to hold that the verdict on this question, the only one in issue, was clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. However that may be, we are precluded from any action other than affirming the case. On the issue in question certain stationery was produced at the trial, which was shown was furnished Brownell Bros. by the plaintiff; and testimony introduced pertaining to the wording and the use of the same in the conduct of said business. The stationery is not shown as an exhibit nor was it read into the record, and so we have not the evidence before us.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 Ill. App. 576, 1911 Ill. App. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flint-wagon-works-v-dalton-illappct-1911.