Neff v. Harwood Barley Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Neff v. Harwood Barley Manufacturing Co.

193 Ill. App. 439

DecidedDecember 11, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 193 Ill. App. 439 (Neff v. Harwood Barley Manufacturing 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

Neff v. Harwood Barley Manufacturing Co., 193 Ill. App. 439 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Pbincipal and agent, § 190*—when principal cannot defeat recovery of commissions. Where a manufacturing concern selling through agents on commission has received the benefit of work done under an agency created under authority which it notified a prospective purchaser and agent it had reposed in one of its general appointing agents, the right of such appointed agent to a commission cannot he defeated by the mere fact that the seller subsequently makes agents of the customers introduced by such appointed agent. 4. Instbuctions, § 73*—when not erroneous as assuming facts. An instruction stating, “if you find from the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant acting by its duly authorized aggnt, agreed,” etc., is not erroneous as assuming that a contract was made with a duly authorized agent of defendant.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Pbincipal and agent, § 190*—when principal cannot defeat recovery of commissions. Where a manufacturing concern selling through agents on commission has received the benefit of work done under an agency created under authority which it notified a prospective purchaser and agent it had reposed in one of its general appointing agents, the right of such appointed agent to a commission cannot he defeated by the mere fact that the seller subsequently makes agents of the customers introduced by such appointed agent. 4. Instbuctions, § 73*—when not erroneous as assuming facts. An instruction stating, “if you find from the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant acting by its duly authorized aggnt, agreed,” etc., is not erroneous as assuming that a contract was made with a duly authorized agent of defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 Ill. App. 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neff-v-harwood-barley-manufacturing-co-illappct-1914.