Lawrence v. Johnson

Illinois Supreme Court

Lawrence v. Johnson

64 Ill. 351

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 64 Ill. 351 (Lawrence v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence v. Johnson, 64 Ill. 351 (Ill. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

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

Per Curiam :

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Ill. 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-johnson-ill-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack