Pemberton v. Williams
| Decision Date | 30 September 1877 |
| Citation | 1877 WL 9790,87 Ill. 15 |
| Parties | MICHAEL PEMBERTONv.JOHN WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
Mr. A. T. EWING, for the appellant.
Messrs. ALLEN, BARNUM & ALLEN, for the appellee.
This was indebitatus assumpsit, in the Superior Court of Cook county, on the common counts, wherein Michael Pemberton was plaintiff and against John Williams, defendant.
The issue was non assumpsit, and tried by a jury, who, under instructions of the court, returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, and, refusing a motion for a new trial, the court rendered a judgment against the plaintiff for the costs, to reverse which plaintiff appeals.
The facts are briefly these: Appellee had sold a tract of land in McLean county to one Baker, taking six notes therefor on time, and executing to Baker a title bond for the land, five of the notes being each for the sum of four hundred dollars, and the sixth, last to be due, for three hundred dollars. The interest was to be paid annually, on the first day of March. The notes and bond were dated October 5, 1866. On October 9, 1868, Baker assigned the bond to appellant, who, being unable to read or write, made his payments to appellee through the Home Bank of Bloomington, acting as the agent of appellee. It appears that in the spring of 1875, appellant bargained the land to one Slinglove, and requested appellee to send a deed to him, so that he might satisfy Slinglove, who was urgent in his demand for the deed. Appellee sent a deed to the care of the Home Bank, together with the three hundred dollar note mentioned above, with instructions to deliver them to appellant on his forwarding the title bond, and paying the note and accrued interest, claimed to amount in all to three hundred and sixty-five dollars. Appellant, supposing he had paid in full all the demand appellee had against the land, went to his attorney to make a computation of the interest and several payments he had made on these notes, and ascertain what balance was due from him to appellee. This was found, on the data thus presented, to be about fifty dollars, which amount appellant offered to pay appellee and surrender the bond on his receiving a deed for the land.
On this being communicated to appellee, he directed the bank to return the deed to him and the note, and refused to deliver a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Prime Cable of Chicago
...(Illinois Merchants Trust Co. v. Harvey ) to be judged in light of all the circumstances surrounding a given transaction (Pemberton v. Williams (1877), 87 Ill. 15; Schlossberg v. E.L. Trendel & Associates; Gerber v. First National Bank (1975), 30 Ill.App.3d 776, 332 N.E.2d 615; see Illinois......
-
Best Buy Co., Inc. v. Harlem-Irving Companies
...circumstances surrounding a given transaction. Smith, 276 Ill.App.3d at 850, 213 Ill.Dec. 304, 658 N.E.2d at 1331. See also Pemberton v. Williams, 87 Ill. 15 (1877); Schlossberg v. E.L. Trendel & Assocs., Inc., 63 Ill.App.3d 939, 942, 380 N.E.2d 950, 953, 20 Ill.Dec. 741, 744 (1978); Gerber......
-
Arasmith v. Temple
...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 afterward ratified it: Blalock v. Randall, ......
-
Link v. Aiple-Hemmelmann Real Estate Co.
...86 S.W. 129; Westlake v. St. Louis, 77 Mo. 47; Joannin v. Ogilvie, 49 Minn. 564, 52 N.W. 217; White v. Heylman, 34 Pa. 142; Pemberton v. Williams, 87 Ill. 15; Fargusson Winslow, 34 Minn. 384, 25 N.W. 942; State v. Nelson, 41 Minn. 25, 42 N.W. 548.] In Fout v. Giraldin, supra, plaintiffs mor......