Lawrence v. Johnson
64 Ill. 351
Opinion
In this case, Winston being merely an agent to collect the note, had no power to extend the time of payment, and thus discharge the sureties, without the consent of his principal. Nolan v. Jackson, 16 Ill. 274.
We are also of opinion that the defendants did not prove a contract to extend the time of payment, except one of a conditional .character. Even if Winston had had authority, he made no binding contract.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lawrence v. Johnson, 64 Ill. 351 (Ill. 1872).
64 Ill. 351 (Lawrence v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lewis v. Atlas Corp.
63 F. Supp. 217 (D. New Jersey, 1945)
Brown v. Coffee
121 P. 309 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Many, Blanc & Co. v. Jacobson
149 Ill. App. 240 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1909)