Lindeman v. Wagner

Appellate Court of Illinois

Lindeman v. Wagner

67 Ill. App. 134, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 35

DecidedDecember 14, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 67 Ill. App. 134 (Lindeman v. Wagner) 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

Lindeman v. Wagner, 67 Ill. App. 134, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 35 (Ill. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion op the Court.

It is true, as contended by appellant, that the architect had no power to change the contract, or to do more than was intrusted to him by the agreement, and that if he acted fraudulently, the parties are not bound by such action. It does not appear that the architect acted fraudulently; he may have erred in thinking that the work was well done—the testimony given on behalf of appellant tends to show that he did—but there is no evidence to the effect that the architect was actuated by any improper motive. The burden of showing that the architeót fraudulently gave the certificate in question, was upon appellant; this he did not show. The mere fact that the building was not completed at the agreed time, and that the architect allowed appellees the full contract price, did not establish that the certificate was fraudulently issued.

It is too late for appellant to contend that he did not authorize Fry, the architect, to sign the agreement.

Appellant accepted such signing, acted under the contract with full knowledge of how it was made, and is bound thereby.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion op the Court.

It is true, as contended by appellant, that the architect had no power to change the contract, or to do more than was intrusted to him by the agreement, and that if he acted fraudulently, the parties are not bound by such action. It does not appear that the architect acted fraudulently; he may have erred in thinking that the work was well done—the testimony given on behalf of appellant tends to show that he did—but there is no evidence to the effect that the architect was actuated by any improper motive. The burden of showing that the architeót fraudulently gave the certificate in question, was upon appellant; this he did not show. The mere fact that the building was not completed at the agreed time, and that the architect allowed appellees the full contract price, did not establish that the certificate was fraudulently issued.

It is too late for appellant to contend that he did not authorize Fry, the architect, to sign the agreement.

Appellant accepted such signing, acted under the contract with full knowledge of how it was made, and is bound thereby.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Ill. App. 134, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindeman-v-wagner-illappct-1896.