Hartley Bros. v. Varner
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 1878 WL 9934,88 Ill. 561 |
| Parties | HARTLEY BROS.v.ALLEN VARNER et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Edgar county; the Hon. OLIVER L. DAVIS, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. BISHOP & MCKINLAY, for the appellants.
Messrs SELLAR & DOLE, for the appellee.
This case was commenced before a justice of the peace of Edgar county, by appellant against Allen Varner and A. W. Reubottom, where judgment was rendered against Varner alone for $199. From that judgment Varner appealed to the circuit court of Edgar county, and judgment there was rendered in his favor.
Appellants bring the case here, and insist that the verdict of the jury, in the circuit court, was contrary to the evidence.
Joseph Hartley, one of the appellants, testifies that on the 24th of March, 1874, Varner came into the store of the appellants, and he and witness had a conversation about Reubottom's account; that he told Varner that Reubottom owed appellants then $8 or $9, and they did not intend to credit him any further; that Varner replied to this that Reubottom was all right, was at work for or with him, and if appellants would sell him goods he (Varner) would see it paid. He further says they then sold Reubottom goods, from that time on until October 26, 1874, to the amount of $160.91, exclusive of what Reubottom owed them prior to the conversation with Varner. Varner, in his evidence, utterly denies ever having had any such conversation, or that he was in appellants' store at the time stated. He says he did tell Joseph Hartley, in the street in Dallas, that he thought Reubottom was good and would pay him; but he positively denies that he ever agreed to vouch for him or pay this account.
Varner is uncorroborated by any other witness. Hartley is corroborated as to the fact that Varner was in appellants' store, at the time stated by him, by George Hartley and Simon Patterson, who both swear they saw Varner there at that time. He is also corroborated as to the fact that Varner agreed to become responsible for goods they might sell to Reubottom, by Patterson and Cassius M. Hawes. Patterson says he heard Varner say, at the time mentioned by Joseph Hartley, that he thought Reubottom was good, and that he would not be afraid to vouch for him.
Hawes says that Varner told him that Joseph Hartley had asked him about Reubottom's standing and if he should sell him goods on credit, and that he (Varner) had told him Reubottom was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosewood Care Center, Inc. v. Caterpillar
...another was made after the obligation of the principal debtor had been incurred. Williams v. Corbet, 28 Ill. 262 (1862); Hartley Brothers v. Varner, 88 Ill. 561 (1878). Oral promises made prior to the obligation of the principal debtor had been incurred were enforceable. In the instant matt......
-
Rosewood Care Center v. Caterpillar
...and remanded. 366 Ill.App.3d 730, 304 Ill.Dec. 290, 852 N.E.2d 540. Relying on Williams v. Corbet, 28 Ill. 262 (1862), and Hartley Bros. v. Varner, 88 Ill. 561 (1878), the appellate court held that a promise to pay the debt of another is subject to the statute of frauds only if the debt exi......
- Lusk v. Throop
-
Brown, Udell and Pomerantz, Ltd. v. Ryan
...precedent of the Illinois Supreme Court in two cases from the late 1800's, Williams v. Corbet, 28 Ill. 262 (1862), and Hartley Brothers v. Varner, 88 Ill. 561 (1878). The Rosewood court also cited with approval Ricci v. Reed, 169 Ill.App.3d 1062, 120 Ill.Dec. 307, 523 N.E.2d 1218 (1988), an......