Hart v. Carsley Mfg. Co.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtSCOTT
Citation77 N.E. 897,221 Ill. 444
PartiesHART et al. v. CARSLEY MFG. CO.
Decision Date07 June 1906

221 Ill. 444
77 N.E. 897

HART et al.
v.
CARSLEY MFG.
CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 17, 1906.
Rehearing Denied June 7, 1906.


Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Action by the Carsley Manufacturing Company against Robert Hart and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Court (116 Ill. App. 159) affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.


[221 Ill. 445]Julius & Lessing Rosenthal, for appellants.

Pierson, Pease & De Young, for appellee.


[221 Ill. 444]This is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District affirming a judgment for $7,499.36 rendered by the circuit court of Cook county against the appellants and in favor of appellee. On June 29, 1901, appellants entered into a written contract with the appellee, by which the latter agreed to furnish certain material for and install and finish certain work in and upon seven residences which appellants were building upon their property at the northeast corner of Grand Goulevard and Fiftieth street, in the city of Boulevard and Fiftieth street, in the city of and the work performed under the direction and to the satisfaction of an architect named in the contract. The entire contract price was $22,715. Appellee was to receive a portion of the contract price as the work progressed and the balance within 30 days after the work was completed. No payments were to be made except upon written certificate of the architect to the effect that the payment was due, and the contract expressly provides ‘such certificates shall be a condition precedent to the right to require payment.’ Appellee furnished the material and completed the work in accordance with the contract, as it contends, but was unable to obtain the architect's final certificate, for the reason, as it charges, that the architect fraudulently combined with appellants to defeat the claims of appellee by refusing to make the final certificate, while the case was defended upon the theory that the contract had not been complied with so far as doing the work and furnishing the material was concerned, and the certificate was therefore properly withheld. The declaration consisted of the common counts and one special count. The special count was so drawn that the contract was not admissible thereunder, but the contract was admitted under the common counts, and a verdict for plaintiff followed. At the close of the evidence appellants moved the court to direct a verdict in their favor. This motion was denied, and the jury, in addition to the general verdict, returned special findings of fact in answer to questions submitted to them at the request of appellants, to the effect that the architect's final certificate was withheld through fraud and collusion with the defendants, and not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 24, 1913
    ...357; Fogg v. Rapid Trans. Co., 90 Hun, 274; Lumber Co. v. Sahrbacher, 38 P. 635; Harris v. Sharpless, 202 Pa. St. 243; Hart v. Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444; Hood v. Smiley, 5 Wyo. 70; Houlahan v. Clark, 110 Wis. 43; Jennings v. Camp., 13 Johns. 94; Perry v. Quackenbush, 38 P. 740; Smith v. Brady,......
  • Concord Apartment House Co. v. O'Brien
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 3, 1907
    ...on this point. Appellant contends that even on this state of the record, under the decision of the court in Hart v. Carsley Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444, 77 N. E. 897,112 Am. St. Rep. 189, the contract was improperly admitted in evidence, and no recovery could be had on the common counts because ......
  • Halvorson v. Blue Mountain Prune Growers Co-op.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • February 15, 1950
    ...sue upon the contract, alleging in his complaint his excuse for not complying with the contract in that regard. Hart v. Carsley Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444, 77 N.E. 897, 112 Am.St.Rep 189, 5 Ann.Cas. 720; Williams v. Chicago, S. F. & C. Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 463, 20 S.W. 631, 637, 638, 34 Am.St.Rep. ......
  • Victory Cabinet Co. v. Insurance Co., No. 9985.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 30, 1950
    ...be permitted to show a waiver of conditions on the part of the defendant. The true rule is said to be found in Hart v. Carsley Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444, 77 N.E. 897, 112 Am.St.Rep. 189, 5 Ann.Cas. 720, where it is said: "`Though an excuse for not performing a condition is for some purposes eq......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Evans v. Cheyenne Cement, Stone & Brick Company, 673
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 24, 1913
    ...357; Fogg v. Rapid Trans. Co., 90 Hun, 274; Lumber Co. v. Sahrbacher, 38 P. 635; Harris v. Sharpless, 202 Pa. St. 243; Hart v. Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444; Hood v. Smiley, 5 Wyo. 70; Houlahan v. Clark, 110 Wis. 43; Jennings v. Camp., 13 Johns. 94; Perry v. Quackenbush, 38 P. 740; Smith v. Brady,......
  • Concord Apartment House Co. v. O'Brien
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 3, 1907
    ...on this point. Appellant contends that even on this state of the record, under the decision of the court in Hart v. Carsley Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444, 77 N. E. 897,112 Am. St. Rep. 189, the contract was improperly admitted in evidence, and no recovery could be had on the common counts because ......
  • Halvorson v. Blue Mountain Prune Growers Co-op.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • February 15, 1950
    ...sue upon the contract, alleging in his complaint his excuse for not complying with the contract in that regard. Hart v. Carsley Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444, 77 N.E. 897, 112 Am.St.Rep 189, 5 Ann.Cas. 720; Williams v. Chicago, S. F. & C. Ry. Co., 112 Mo. 463, 20 S.W. 631, 637, 638, 34 Am.St.Rep. ......
  • Victory Cabinet Co. v. Insurance Co., No. 9985.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 30, 1950
    ...be permitted to show a waiver of conditions on the part of the defendant. The true rule is said to be found in Hart v. Carsley Mfg. Co., 221 Ill. 444, 77 N.E. 897, 112 Am.St.Rep. 189, 5 Ann.Cas. 720, where it is said: "`Though an excuse for not performing a condition is for some purposes eq......
  • 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