Swisher v. Deering

104 Ill. App. 572, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 862
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedNovember 1, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 104 Ill. App. 572 (Swisher v. Deering) 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
Swisher v. Deering, 104 Ill. App. 572, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 862 (Ill. Ct. App. 1902).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Burroughs

delivered the opinion of the court.

On February 18, 1902, the appellees, Charles Deering, James Deering and Bichard F. Boe, partners doing business under the firm name of Deering Harvester Company, brought their action of assumpsit in the Circuit Court of Champaign County against the appellant, G. M. Swisher, to recover $1,615.38, representing the balance which one O. P. Kellogg had acknowledged in writing that he owed to the appellees under the terms of two certain written contracts which he had made with them at the time he was appointed their agent at St. Joseph, Champaign county, Illinois, for the season of 1901, the terms of which contracts the appellant, at the time the.contracts were made, had guaranteed that Kellogg would keep and perform.

The declaration ^counted specially' on the written guaranty, and contained also appropriate common counts. The appellant pleaded non-assumpsit, and a special plea that the written guaranty had never been delivered. Issue was joined on the plea of non-assumpsit, and the facts averred in the special plea were traversed. The case was tried by jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the appellees for $1,615.38. The appellant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment entered upon the verdict.

To effect a reversal of the judgment the appellant prosecutes this appeal, and argues for error that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and evidence; that the court erred in admitting in evidence, over the objection of appellant, the written acknowledgment of Kellogg that he was indebted to the appellees; that the court erred in giving to the jury appellee’s instructions numbered 2, 3 and 5; and in refusing appellant’s instructions numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9, as requested by the appellant.

It appears that the appellees are manufacturers of farm machinery, twine and supplies, with the general office in the city of Chicago, and that they have an office also in Springfield, Illinois; that O. P. Kellogg is a dealer in agricultural machinery, twine and supplies at the village of St. Joseph, Champaign county, Illinois, and that the appellant lives near that village and is in the grain commission business. Mr. Kellogg had been the agent for the appellees at St. Joseph for three years prior to 1901, and the appellant had guaranteed to the appellees that he, Kellogg, would account for the proceeds of all farm machinery and supplies which he would sell for the appellees during those years.

On March 26, 1901, C. E. Peebles, the general agent of the appellees for that part of Illinois comprising Champaign county and other counties, called upon Mr. Kellogg at St. Joseph for the purpose of appointing him agent of the appellees for the sale of their goods there for the season beginning then and ending December 31,1901; and to that end Mr. Peebles made out and signed, in the name of the appellees, a “Commission Agency Machine Contract” and a Twine Commission Contract,” both of which Mr. Kellogg signed. They both then went to the appellant, who agreed to guarantee that Mr. Kellogg would faithfully perform the agreements he had made with the appellees in both contracts, and he and Mr. Kellogg (but not Mr. Peebles) went to the bank in order to get a pen, and there the appellant signed his name to the guaranty under each of the contracts and then turned both of them over to Mr. Kellogg unconditionally (as testified to by Mr. Kellogg, and as testified to by the appellant, conditionally that he (Kellogg) should deliver them to Mr. Peebles when one Yates should also join the appellant as co-guarantor thereon). Mr. Kellogg did turn them both over to Mr. Peebles for the appellees unconditionally, and with the appellant as the only guarantor thereon. The two contracts and the guaranty written under each are as follows:

“ Commission Agency Machine Contract.

St. Joseph, III., Mar. 26, 1901.

Memorandum of an agreement between Deering Harvester Company, a copartnership, of Chicago, Illinois, and O. P. Kellogg, of St. Joseph P. O., County of Campaign and State of Illinois.

1: Said Deering Harvester Company appoints said -agent hereunder, and for receiving, keeping and selling in its behalf its harvesters, binders, reapers, mowers, hay-rakes, twine, extra parts, trucks, bundle carriers, flax carriers and other attachments, oñ commission, for the following territory only: St. Joseph and vicinity, for the entire season of 1901.

11: Said agent agrees to perform all the duties of such agency with prompt business diligence and due care and skill, and in particular also agrees:

1: To sell only upon the terms and at the prices prescribed by Deering Harvester Company, solely to good and responsible parties, using no warranty other than Deering Harvester Company’s printed warranty for 1901; to deliver, set up, and fairly start every machine sold, and to instruct the purchaser how to adjust it to work in different conditions of grain or grass.

S: To effect a complete settlement with each purchaser at the time of delivery, and remit all cash proceeds promptly to Deering Harvester Company, and take all notes representing the purchase price of time sales payable to the order of Deering Harvester Company, using for that purpose the note blanks furnished by said company.

3: To guarantee the payment of such notes in the form now used by Deering Harvester Company in such case. It is intended that notes taken from purchasers shall be such as shall be good without further security at any local bank in the vicinity, and if any note or notes be turned over as being of that character, and Deering Harvester Company shall, within six months, discover a mistake in so rating the same, said agent shall make the same good.

JP: To render to Deering Harvester Company, at the close of the selling season, or whenever requested by it, a complete statement of sales, and also to render to it, on request, a full statement of account upon blanks to be furnished by it for that purpose, and with every note or set of notes delivered to said company for acceptance on account of sales made under this contract, to furnish therewith, for the use and benefit of said company, correct information concerning the notemaker’s credit and responsibility.

5: To hold all goods shipped or received until sold and delivered, and the entire proceeds of all sales, as the sole property of said Deering Harvester Company, and as á special deposit for it, until it shall be fully settled with.

6: Hot to sell or be interested in the sale of any similar goods of or for any other house or concern, and to pay as liquidated damages the sum of $20 for each machine sold in event of sales being made in violation hereof.

7: To pay all costs and expenses of a canvasser or expert, if any, while working for or with said agent, should any be provided by Deering Harvester Company.

8: To insure by loss or damage by fire, in a reliable company, by policy in the name of Deering Harvester Company, at expense of said agent, all of said company’s goods on hand at said agency, at any time, for at least three-fourths of the net price, while in his or their custody.

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

Related

Phillips-Boyd Pub. Co. v. McKinnon
73 So. 43 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
International Textbook Co. v. Mabbott
150 N.W. 429 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1915)
W. T. Rawleigh Medical Co. v. Laursen
141 N.W. 64 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 Ill. App. 572, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swisher-v-deering-illappct-1902.