Popper v. Spelz

Appellate Court of Illinois

Popper v. Spelz

184 Ill. App. 35

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 2, 1913

DocketGen. No. 18,817

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 Ill. App. 35 (Popper v. Spelz) 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

Popper v. Spelz, 184 Ill. App. 35 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Guaranty, § 3*—when officer of corporation not liable. An officer of a corporation refused to sign a form guarantying payment of the corporation’s order hut marked the order with the letters “O. K.,” and his clerk without authority wrote the seller in his name, the seller that the “O. K..” would have to suffice as a guaranty. The alleged guarantor testified the clerk had no authority to write such letter, that it was not written in accordance with the directions given and that he marked the order as an approval. Held, a guaranty was not established and a verdict should have been directed. 3. Guaranty, § 12*—scope of liability. The liability of a guarantor is limited to the express terms of his undertaking and cannot be extended by implication.

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

Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Guaranty, § 3*—when officer of corporation not liable. An officer of a corporation refused to sign a form guarantying payment of the corporation’s order hut marked the order with the letters “O. K.,” and his clerk without authority wrote the seller in his name, the seller that the “O. K..” would have to suffice as a guaranty. The alleged guarantor testified the clerk had no authority to write such letter, that it was not written in accordance with the directions given and that he marked the order as an approval. Held, a guaranty was not established and a verdict should have been directed. 3. Guaranty, § 12*—scope of liability. The liability of a guarantor is limited to the express terms of his undertaking and cannot be extended by implication.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 Ill. App. 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popper-v-spelz-illappct-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack