Laidlou v. Hatch

• Citation: 1874 WL 9179,75 Ill. 11
• Parties: GEORGE LAIDLOU et al.v.FRANK HATCH et al.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1874
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

75 Ill. 11

1874 WL 9179 (Ill.)

GEORGE LAIDLOU et al.

v.FRANK HATCH et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. NATHANIEL J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.

This was a garnishee proceeding, by Frank Hatch, E. C. Holmes and William Cleghorn, against the Kankakee & Indiana Railroad Company, to recover of the company money owing by it to M. C. Ott, a contractor of the company. George Laidlou and Humphrey Barber, partners, intervened and claimed the money owing Ott by the company as belonging to them, under the arrangement stated in the opinion of the court. The court found against them and in favor of the garnisheeing creditors, and Laidlou & Co. appealed.

Mr. JAMES N. ORR, for the appellants.

Mr. W. H. RICHARDSON, for the appellees.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

It appears from the record that one M. C. Ott contracted with the Kankakee and Indiana Railroad Company to grade a portion of their roadway. This contract was in writing. Afterwards, Ott entered into a written contract with appellants, by which they agreed to perform the greater part of his contract for a stipulated price. Under his agreement with the company, Ott commenced the performance of the part of the grading which he had not underlet to appellants, and they commenced labor under their agreement with Ott.

It likewise appears that appellees afterwards recovered a judgment against Ott for $377.62, on which an execution was issued to the sheriff of Kankakee county to execute. He returned the execution no property found. Thereupon appellees sued out a garnishee summons against the railroad company as the debtors of Ott. The garnishees answered, and a trial was had before the court without a jury, when the court found the issues for the appellees and rendered judgment in their favor, from which appellants prosecute this appeal. It appears, from the answers and the testimony in the case, that after Ott and appellants entered into their contract and the latter had commenced work, there was a verbal agreement entered into between Ott, appellants and the treasurer of the railroad company, which was that he should pay to appellants the money coming to them under their contract with Ott when the work was completed and the final estimate was made. The treasurer of the railroad company says the parties came to him after Ott had stated that appellants would quit work unless he would guarantee the payment, and Ott said to him that he should pay Laidlou & Co., instead of making payment to him, and that he so agreed, but that Laidlou said nothing. Under this, Laidlou & Co....