Tascott v. Grace

• Decision Date: 31 March 1883
• Citation: Tascott v. Grace, 12 Ill.App. 639, 12 Bradw. 639 (Ill. App. 1883)
• Parties: JAMES P. TASCOTTv.PARKER GRACE.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

12 Ill.App. 639

12 Bradw. 639

JAMES P. TASCOTT

v.PARKER GRACE.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.

March Term, 1883.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. ELLIOTT ANTHONY, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed April 24, 1883.

Mr. JESSE COX, Jr., for appellant; that a verdict clearly against the weight of evidence will be set aside, cited T. W. & W. R'y Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; Belden v. Innis, 84 Ill. 78; Dinet v. Reilly, 2 Bradwell, 316.

A hypothetical question embracing a supposition of facts of which no evidence had been given, is erroneous: Thayer v. Davis, 38 Vt. 163; Spear v. Richardson, 37 N. H. 23; Wright v. Hardy, 22 Wis. 348.

Voluntary services done without the privity or consent of the defendant, however beneficial to him, afford no ground of action: Bartholomew v. Jackson, 20 Johnston (N. Y.), 28; Mumford v. Brown, 6 Cowen, 476; Campbell v. Day, 90 Ill. 368.

Whether, under the circumstances in the case, there was any obligation to pay arising from the acts of the party to be charged, is a question of fact for the jury: Wilson v. Edmunds, 24 N. H. 546; Oatfield v. Waring, 14 Johnston (N. Y.), 188; Baker v. Keen, 2 Starkie R. 501; Parsons on Contracts, 446.

Messrs. BONNEY, FAY & GRIGGS, for appellee; that error in the assumption of hypothetical questions does not make the interrogatory objectionable, if it is within the possible or probable range of the evidence: Filer v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. 49 N. Y. 42; Harnett v. Garvey, 66 N. Y. 641.

As to evidence: Addems v. Suver, 89 Ill. 485; Schmidt v. Sinnott, 103 Ill. 163.

A judgment should not be disturbed when there is evidence to sustain the verdict: Addems v. Suver, 89 Ill. 482; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 89 Ill. 516; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 87 Ill. 454; Lewis v. Lewis, 92 Ill. 240.

WILSON, J.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by appellee against appellant, to recover for services alleged to have been rendered by him for the latter in and about the collection of a claim held by appellant against Vane, Calvert & Co., of St. Louis.

One of the principal matters in controversy on the trial was as to whether the services for which the suit was brought, were rendered at the request of the defendant, or whether they were volunteered by the plaintiff through friendship for appellee, and without expecting compensation therefor. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he was employed by the defendant to assist him in the collection of a demand which the latter had against Vane & Co., with the assurance that if successful, defendant would pay him well for his services; that he accordingly rendered such assistance, and defendant thereby recovered some $8,000.

On the other hand, it was claimed by the defendant that plaintiff's services were trifling in amount, and were wholly voluntary, being rendered as a mere matter of friendship, and without any expectation on plaintiff's part of making any charge or receiving any compensation therefor, and that defendant never promised to pay for the same.

Evidence was given by the parties tending to support their respective theories. The jury found for the plaintiff $400, for which sum he had judgment.

Among other instructions the court gave the following, at the instance of the plaintiff:

3. “The jury are further instructed that if they believe from the evidence that the plaintiff performed services for the defendant in the collection of his claim against Allen Vane, and that the defendant requested or accepted such services, and that the said services were of benefit to defendant; then they are instructed that there is an implied contract and obligation to pay for such services, such sum as the jury believe, from all the evidence in the case, such services were reasonably worth.” To the giving of which instruction the defendant duly excepted.

The mere acceptance of beneficial services rendered by another without the request of the party to be charged and without any subsequent promise to pay for the same, creates no obligation to pay, even though the services rendered be beneficial to the person accepting them. There must be either a previous request, or a subsequent promise, express or implied, to create a liability. This...