Hoyt v. Schillo Motor Sales Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Hoyt v. Schillo Motor Sales Co.

185 Ill. App. 628, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 1194

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 1, 1914

DocketGen. No. 18,721

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 Ill. App. 628 (Hoyt v. Schillo Motor Sales Co.) 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

Hoyt v. Schillo Motor Sales Co., 185 Ill. App. 628, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 1194 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Automobiles and garages, § 4*—when automobile firm liable on unsigned contract for sale and exchange of machines. A person desirous of trading his automobile for another negotiated with an automobile firm and a written proposal was submitted to him in which he was to be allowed a certain amount for his machine. Such party on inspection of the papers made some changes and interlineations as to matters of minor consequence and the proposal was signed by him and by a salesman in the trade name of the firm with the understanding that because of the changes and interlineations the papers should be rewritten and returned to the purchaser for signature. The corrected copy was never delivered and the members of the firm refused to comply with the agreement claiming they were not hound by the signature of the salesman. Held that the members of the firm were hound by the proposal though they had not affixed their signature thereto, it appearing that they affrmatively expressed their assent thereto and had acted thereon in negotiating with a customer for the sale of the contemplated purchaser’s machine. 2. Contracts, § 53*—when party not signing is bound. A contract signed by only one of the parties is mutual and binding on both, if the other party, upon its delivery to him, assents to its terms and holds and acts upon it as a valid agreement. *

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

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Automobiles and garages, § 4*—when automobile firm liable on unsigned contract for sale and exchange of machines. A person desirous of trading his automobile for another negotiated with an automobile firm and a written proposal was submitted to him in which he was to be allowed a certain amount for his machine. Such party on inspection of the papers made some changes and interlineations as to matters of minor consequence and the proposal was signed by him and by a salesman in the trade name of the firm with the understanding that because of the changes and interlineations the papers should be rewritten and returned to the purchaser for signature. The corrected copy was never delivered and the members of the firm refused to comply with the agreement claiming they were not hound by the signature of the salesman. Held that the members of the firm were hound by the proposal though they had not affixed their signature thereto, it appearing that they affrmatively expressed their assent thereto and had acted thereon in negotiating with a customer for the sale of the contemplated purchaser’s machine. 2. Contracts, § 53*—when party not signing is bound. A contract signed by only one of the parties is mutual and binding on both, if the other party, upon its delivery to him, assents to its terms and holds and acts upon it as a valid agreement. *

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 Ill. App. 628, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 1194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-schillo-motor-sales-co-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack