Combs v. Steele
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 80 Ill. 101,1875 WL 8716 |
| Parties | ANNA J. COMBSv.JAMES STEELE et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellees, against the appellant. The declaration contained only the common counts for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, for money paid out and expended, and for work, labor and material.
At the May term, and on the 14th of May, 1874, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, and on the 29th of the same month, and during the same term, a motion was entered by plaintiffs to reinstate the cause, which motion was continued to a subsequent term of court, and then sustained, and the judgment of dismissal set aside and the cause placed on the trial calendar.
On the trial, the plaintiffs read in evidence--defendant objecting thereto-- the following contract, to-wit:
“We, the undersigned property owners, or agents, agree to pay Steele, McMahon & Steele three dollars and fifty cents per front foot for paving east side of Twenty-third street, in front of our property. Said Steele, McMahon & Steele to furnish all the material, including the filling, lumber, etc., and pave said Twenty-third street with three or four inch pine blocks, with the Stowe foundation pavement, in a good and workmanlike manner, to the satisfaction of the Board of Public Works, under the supervision of W. H. Stowe.
C. FOLLANSBEE, 450 feet.
J. H. BOWERS, 60 feet.
Mrs. ANNA J. COMBS, 127 feet.”
Appellees then proved full performance of the contract on their part.
The jury found a verdict for the appellees, and assessed their damages at $444.50, for which amount judgment was rendered, and appellant appealed. Messrs. HOYNE, HORTON & HOYNE, and Messrs. MCDAID, WILSON & PITCHER, for the appellant.
Mr. T. A. MORAN, for the appellees.
The contract in evidence obligates the owners, or agents, whose names are appended to it, to pay plaintiffs a certain sum per foot for paving the street in front of their property, each a definite number of feet by them respectively owned. Evidence introduced on the trial shows plaintiffs had done the work, in paving the street, according to the specifications of the contract, in a workmanlike manner, to the satisfaction of the Board of Public Works. On this question, the testimony is quite full. Nothing, therefore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Illinois Fuel Co. v. M. & O. Railroad Co.
...and to the construction given it by the parties themselves in its actual performance. Davis & Rankin v. Hendrix, 59 Mo. App. 449; Combs v. Steele, 80 Ill. 101; Otis v. Pittsburgh Coal Co. (C.C.A.), 199 Fed. 86. (b) "If the whole contract discloses that as to any part of it, there is imposed......
-
Sedgwick Fundingco, LLC v. NewDelman (In re Grail Semiconductor, a Cal. Corp.)
...the same or separate promises is entirely one of contract interpretation. See Filosa v. Pecora, 18 Ill.App.3d 123 (1974); Combs v. Steele, 80 Ill. 101 (1875) ("Contracts will be construed to be joint or several, as the case may be, where the intent of the respective parties appears on the f......
-
Illinois Fuel Co. v. Mobile & O.R. Co.
... ... the parties themselves in its actual performance. Davis & Rankin v. Hendrix, 59 Mo.App. 449; Combs v ... Steele, 80 Ill. 101; Otis v. Pittsburgh Coal Co. (C ... C. A.), 199 F. 86. (b) "If the whole contract ... discloses that as to any part ... ...
-
Shipman v. Gladden
...Is within the discretion of the hearing court, with the right to reinstate likewise being a matter of judicial discretion. (Combs v. Steele, 80 Ill. 101). '* * '* * * In keeping with this judicial attitude, and in light of the exceptional circumstances surrounding the defendant's representa......