Guerdon v. Corbett
| Decision Date | 30 September 1877 |
| Citation | 87 Ill. 272,1877 WL 9856 |
| Parties | HENRY GUERDONv.CHARLES W. CORBETT et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding. Mr. S. P. PRESCOTT, and Mr. A. GARRISON, for the appellant.
Appellees brought an action before a justice of the peace of Cook county, to recover for labor as carpenters, against appellant. On a trial before the justice, they recovered a judgment for $75, and defendant appealed to the circuit court of that county. On a trial in the circuit court they recovered a verdict and judgment for a similar sum, and defendant has perfected an appeal to this court.
It appears, appellees advertised that they would perform carpenter's work, for any one desiring to employ them, and take in payment therefor city lots. The parties came together, when it was agreed that appellees would perform certain carpenter's work, in erecting and repairing buildings and in constructing a milk vat for appellant, he to furnish all material and to convey to them two lots, and they to give notes and mortgage to secure the balance of the purchase money, on his conveying the lots to them.
Afterwards, the parties made this indorsement on the written contract, which was signed by them:
“It is hereby mutually agreed that seventy-five dollars ($75) has been paid on the above contract by Corbett & Loft to Guerdon, and Guerdon agrees to deed said lots to said Corbett & Loft, taking their notes and mortgages for balance, leaving further carpenter work subject to future agreement, except that the milk vats are to be completed, Guerdon furnishing material.”
This indorsement seems to have been made after all the work had been done, and appellees swear appellant was to furnish lumber to line the milk vat, but afterwards refused, and that they offered to go on and finish it two or three times, but he failed to furnish material according to the agreement in the indorsement. Appellant, on the other hand, insists that the plan upon which they proposed to finish it would not have prevented it from leaking, and he furnished the lumber, but this they deny.
Appellees say they did other work besides constructing the milk vats, but do not specify the amount and value, and it may be presumed it, with completing the milk vats, amounted to $75, as that is the sum paid by them, as fixed by the indorsement on the agreement, including the completion of the vats. They swear appellant failed to furnish white lead to use in the joints of the boards of which the vat was constructed, when called on for the purpose, and had he furnished it the vat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris Lumber Company v. Wheeler Lumber Company
...v. Mann, 4 Seld. 512; Curtis v. Gibney, 59 Md. 131; Haines v. Tucker, 50 N.H. 307; King Philip Mills v. Slater, 12 R.I. 82; Guerdon v. Corbett, 87 Ill. 272; Wilson v. Bauman, 80 Ill. Winchell v. Scott, 114 N.Y. 640, 21 N.E. 1065; Flaherty v. Miner, 123 N.Y. 382, 389, 25 N.E. 418; Mead v. De......
-
Arasmith v. Temple
...in the employ of appellant, or whether he was acting for himself: Hubner v. Feige, 90 Ill. 208; Van Duzer v. Allen, 90 Ill. 499; Guerdon v. Corbett, 87 Ill. 272; Pemberton v. Williams, 87 Ill. 15; Poleman v. Johnson, 84 Ill. 269. Appellant is not liable unless he authorized the act, or afte......
- The Chicago v. Clark
-
Springer v. Cooper
...v. Fink, 47 Ill. 272; Hope Ins. Co. v. Lonergan, 48 Ill. 49; McCarthy v. Mooney, 49 Ill. 247; Clifford v. Laing, 69 Ill. 401; Guerdon v. Corbitt, 87 Ill. 272; Morgan v Ryerson, 20 Ill. 343; Martin v. Ehrenfels, 24 Ill. 187; Pulliam v. Ogle, 27 Ill. 189; Chicago v. Garrison, 52 Ill. 516; Gal......