Clark v. Smith

Decision Date31 January 1878
Citation1878 WL 9868,88 Ill. 298
PartiesS. S. CLARKv.THOMPSON S. SMITH.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of De Witt county; the Hon. LYMAN LACEY, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of assumpsit, by the appellant against the appellee, to recover the price for a bill of goods sold by the appellant to the appellee. The defense was, payment to Richards, the appellant's agent, at the time he ordered the goods.

It seems Richards was employed to go out and solicit orders for whisky and send them to the plaintiff, who testified that Richards had no right to collect any of the money or receipt in his name.

There was a judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

Messrs. FULLER & GRAHAM, for the appellant.

Messrs. MOORE & WARNER, and Messrs. DONAHUE & KELLY, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE DICKEY delivered the opinion of the Court:

The majority of the court are of the opinion that the proof in this record not only fails to show that Richards had authority to collect for Clark, but also think there is not evidence sufficient to support the proposition that Clark held Richards out to Smith as having such authority. While, perhaps, power to make contracts for the sale of goods upon a credit may be inferred from the letter of July 2, 1874, yet there is nothing in the letter from which authority to receive money in payment can properly be inferred. The verdict is not supported by the proofs, and the exception to the ruling of the court in refusing a new trial was well taken.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Gibson v. Zeibig
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 4 Enero 1887
  • Gibson v. Zeibig
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 4 Enero 1887
    ...Chambers v. Short, 79 Mo. 204; Butler v. Dorman, 68 Mo. 298; Seiple v. Irwin, 30 Pa.St. 513; Law v. Stokes, 32 N.J. 249; Clark v. Smith, 88 Ill. 298; Kornman v. Monaghan, 24 Mich. 36; McKindly v. Dunham, 55 Wis. 515. It doubtless is true that an agency and authority may be inferred from the......
  • Smith v. Droubay
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 14 Noviembre 1899
    ... ... scope of commercial traveler's authority is well defined, ... and, as a general rule, extends only to the soliciting of ... orders for goods." 6 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 2 ed., ... 224, and authorities there cited. Law v. Stokes, 32 ... N. J. L. 249; McKindly v. Dunham, 55 Wis. 515; Clark ... v. Smith, 88 Ill. 298 ... "The ... purchaser from a commercial agent is bound to ascertain the ... agent's powers and in the absence of actual authority, ... the agent's statement that he had authority, is not ... binding upon the principals. The purchaser has no right to ... ...
  • Simon v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 14 Junio 1893
    ... ... Washer, 64 Tex. 131; Butler v ... Dorman, 68 Mo. 298; Law v. Stokes, 90 Amer ... Dec. 655; Kornemann v. Monaghan, 24 Mich. 36; ... Clark v. Smith, 88 Ill. 298; Higgins v ... Moore, 34 N.Y. 417; Greenleaf v. Egan, 30 Minn ... 316, 15 N.W. 254; Seiple v. Irwin, 30 Pa. St. 513 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT