Maxwell v. Longenecker

89 Ill. 102
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 89 Ill. 102 (Maxwell v. Longenecker) 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
Maxwell v. Longenecker, 89 Ill. 102 (Ill. 1878).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This case was before us at the June term, 1876, and is reported as Maxwell v. Longenecker et al. 82 Ill. 308, to which we refer for a statement of the facts.

We discover nothing in the present record, in respect to the terms upon which the $817 of money belonging to Wagner & Weakley was held by appellant, materially differing from what is there disclosed. The evidence clearly shows that this money was to be paid out on the order of Wagner & Weakley, and that it was so paid out. There is no pretense that appellant was indebted to appellees for work done by them for him, nor is there any pretense that any part of the money held by appellant was set apart by agreement with Wagner & Weakley for appellees, or that they ever ordered him to pay appellees.

If it should be conceded that the evidence shows that appellant, notwithstanding, the fact was otherwise, represented that he held the money to pay appellees, and promised to do so upon their completing the work, and that they, relying upon this representation and promise, did complete the work, and we should thereupon hold that appellant is estopped to deny the truth of what he represented, and must make good his promise, there still could.be no recovery under this declaration, for in no count are there averments warranting the admission of such evidence.

To recover on such state of facts, if a recovery thereon could be had, there should have been a special-count averring them. Hite v. Wells, 17 Ill. 91; Eddy et al. v. Roberts, id. 508. The judgment is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

The People v. J.B. Inderrieden Co.
31 N.E.2d 580 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1940)
Potter v. Fitchburg Steam Engine Co.
110 Ill. App. 430 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
City of Chicago v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
87 Ill. App. 611 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Robinson v. Holmes
82 Ill. App. 307 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
De Votie v. McGerr
15 Colo. 467 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 Ill. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-longenecker-ill-1878.