Oldershaw v. Knowles

• Decision Date: 10 November 1881
• Parties: PERCIVAL P. OLDERSHAW et al.v.STEPHEN S. KNOWLES.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

101 Ill. 117

1881 WL 10692 (Ill.)

PERCIVAL P. OLDERSHAW et al.

v.STEPHEN S. KNOWLES.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa Nov. 10, 1881.

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the HON. ELLIOTT ANTHONY, Judge, presiding. Messrs. NEEDHAM & MILLER, for the appellants.

Mr. A. B. JENKS, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

It appears that appellants were commission merchants or brokers, and members of the board of trade in Chicago. As such they purchased, at the instance of appellee, in the month of February, 1877, for April delivery, a quantity of lard, at a specified price. Appellee's name was not known in the transaction, but he placed in the hands of appellants a sum of money as a margin. After the purchase, and on the 20th of that month, there was a heavy decline in the price of lard, leaving a difference between the price on that day and the contract price, of over $2000. Appellants called on appellee for $2000, to protect them on the contract. On the evening of that day, Culbertson, a member of appellants' firm, called on appellee, and notified him that unless he put up the money they would sell the lard. It was then agreed that appellee should go home to Jacksonville that night, to see if he could raise the money to make his margins good, and if he succeeded he was to return with it the next day. To this point there is no dispute as to the facts.

Appellants contend that it was further agreed, that if appellee succeeded in procuring the money, he was to telegraph appellants, and they would not sell him out, but would await his return. But appellee claims the agreement was, that he should return to Jacksonville, and if he obtained the money, and returned with it the next day, they would hold it, and would not sell. He went to Jacksonville, obtained the money, and returned to Chicago, reaching there at five o'clock on the afternoon of the 21st, with the money; but before his arrival they had sold, as they claim, at a loss of $2400 on the contract; and deducting from that sum the $700 which appellee had deposited with appellants as a margin, and adding their commissions, they claim there is due to them $1858.10, for the recovery of which they sued him in assumpsit.

Appellee filed a plea of set-off, claiming that by the sale of the lard, not only without authority but against instructions, appellants had no right to recover anything, but, on the contrary, he was entitled to recover back the $700 he had deposited with them. On a trial in the Superior Court of Cook county the jury rendered a verdict against plaintiffs, and in favor of defendant, for $700, and plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court for the First District. On a hearing in that court the judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed, and they bring the record to this court, and assign errors.

The jury having found the facts in favor of appellee, and the Appellate Court having, by affirming the judgment, found them the same way, we are precluded by the statute from considering them, further than they are important in discussing questions of law arising upon them.

It is first insisted that the Superior Court erred in permitting appellee's counsel, on cross-examination, to examine Culbertson as to the manner of settling the identical or original contracts for this...