Stoelker v. Chicago Building Supply Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Stoelker v. Chicago Building Supply Co.

22 Ill. App. 625, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 99

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJuly 13, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 Ill. App. 625 (Stoelker v. Chicago Building Supply 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

Stoelker v. Chicago Building Supply Co., 22 Ill. App. 625, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 99 (Ill. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought in the court below to recover for certain materials delivered for the building of plaintiff in error. The evidence tended clearly to establish that defendant in error had refused to deliver the material to certain carpenters who were erecting a house for plaintiff in error; that therefore. all the parties met together, and plaintiff in error, with the assent of the carpenter contractors, agreed with defendant in error that it would furnish the material if he, plaintiff in error, would retain from the contractor sufficient money to pay for it, and would pay it to defendant in error. The materials were furnished on such agreement, and plaintiff in error did retain from the contractor, and has in Ills hands sufficient money to discharge the amount due to the defendant in error. The claim is made that the contract was, in effect, one to pay the debt of another, and that it was within the Statute of Frauds. The law was correctly given to the jury in the instructions. Some criticism is made of a modification by the court of one of the instructions requested by plaintiff in error. We are not prepared to say that the instruction, as given, was erroneous. It certainly did not tend to mislead' the jury under the facts in this record. The principle of law stated in the instructions is correct, and the verbal criticism hypercritical. There is no error which will authorize a reversal, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought in the court below to recover for certain materials delivered for the building of plaintiff in error. The evidence tended clearly to establish that defendant in error had refused to deliver the material to certain carpenters who were erecting a house for plaintiff in error; that therefore. all the parties met together, and plaintiff in error, with the assent of the carpenter contractors, agreed with defendant in error that it would furnish the material if he, plaintiff in error, would retain from the contractor sufficient money to pay for it, and would pay it to defendant in error. The materials were furnished on such agreement, and plaintiff in error did retain from the contractor, and has in Ills hands sufficient money to discharge the amount due to the defendant in error. The claim is made that the contract was, in effect, one to pay the debt of another, and that it was within the Statute of Frauds. The law was correctly given to the jury in the instructions. Some criticism is made of a modification by the court of one of the instructions requested by plaintiff in error. We are not prepared to say that the instruction, as given, was erroneous. It certainly did not tend to mislead' the jury under the facts in this record. The principle of law stated in the instructions is correct, and the verbal criticism hypercritical. There is no error which will authorize a reversal, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Ill. App. 625, 1887 Ill. App. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoelker-v-chicago-building-supply-co-illappct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack