Booth v. Hynes

• Decision Date: 30 September 1870
• Citation: 1870 WL 6341,54 Ill. 363
• Parties: ALFRED BOOTH et al.v.PATRICK J. HYNES et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

54 Ill. 363

1870 WL 6341 (Ill.)

ALFRED BOOTH et al.

v.PATRICK J. HYNES et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1870.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. WILLIAM A. PORTER, Judge, presiding.

The opinion states the case.

Messrs. CLARKSON & VAN SCHAACK, for the appellants.

Mr. H. M. SHEPARD, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

The only question presented by this record, which we deem necessary to be considered, is, whether the evidence sustains the finding of the jury.

The declaration is in assumpsit, and contains only the common counts. An extended account, with the various items specified, was filed with the declaration, showing the character of the claim of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

It appears, from the evidence, that in 1866 the appellants were the owners of several leases for certain “oil wells” or “oil well” property, in Venango county, Pennsylvania. In May, of that year, they entered into a written contract with appellees, in which it was agreed, for a consideration therein stated, that appellees would do, and have done, certain work specified, on the property, in and about sinking the wells, for the benefit of the appellants. It was agreed that the appellees should keep a just and true account of all moneys expended on the property for work and labor, and materials furnished and render monthly statements of the same to J. H. McVicker.

Under this agreement, the appellees did the work, and expended the sums of money for work and labor, and materials furnished, specified in the account filed, on account of the “oil well” property, and for which expenses the appellants were liable under the contract.

It further appears, that in October, 1866, the appellants sent Sidney Booth to Pennsylvania, with a letter showing his authority for that purpose, from them, to close up the affairs of the appellants with the appellees.

It was, however, understood, that if Sidney Booth, when he got there, desired to purchase the property for his own use, he could have the entire interest of the appellants therein by paying all the debts against the property, but in case he did not wish to purchase, he was fully authorized to sell the interests of the appellants, on the best terms he could secure. After seeing the property, and learning the amount of debts against it from the appellees, he determined not to buy for his own use. In pursuance of his authority, Sidney Booth then made a sale of all the interest of the appellants in the property and leases, to the appellees, for the consideration, as stated in the written transfer, of $1892.

There is some conflict in the evidence, as to what was the real consideration for the sale and transfer of the property.

It is insisted, on the part of the appellees, that they were only to pay $1892 of the claims against the well property, the amount estimated by Sidney Booth and Hynes at the time of the sale and transfer, and that the “well property” at that time owed $557.64 in addition thereto, and that, in their calculations, a mistake of that amount was made. This is the amount in controversy between the...