The Chamber of Commerce of The City of Chicago v. Sollitt
| Decision Date | 30 April 1866 |
| Citation | 43 Ill. 519,1866 WL 4711 |
| Parties | THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGOv.JOHN SOLLITT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; Hon. JOHN A. JAMESON, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the Chamber of Commerce against Sollitt, for damages for the non performance of a contract for the carpenter work on a building. This contract was made June 30, 1864. On the 13th of July, following, Sollitt notified the building committee of his entire inability to comply with his contract, in a letter which appears at length in the opinion. The committee at once informed him that they should hold him responsible on his contract; that letter is also quoted in the opinion. The action was for damages for the non-performance of the contract. There was a plea of the general issue, a trial by a jury, and a verdict.
Messrs. ARRINGTON & DENT, for the appellant.
1. This case rests on the legal principle, now thoroughly established, that, where one party to a contract gives notice that he will not or can not perform it, the other party may take him at his word, and employ others to perform the same service, and hold the party in default responsible. Cort v. Ambergate, etc., R. W., 6 Eng. Law & Eq. 230; Planche v. Colburn, 8 Bingh. 14; Masterson v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 7 Hill, 61. But especially see Hockster v. De Latour, 20 Eng. Law & Eq. 157.
2. The silence of Sollitt was an acquiescence in the construction which the plaintiff put upon his previous notice of refusal, as well as in the line of conduct which the plaintiff declared an intention to adopt in relation to the refusal. 1 Greenl. Evid. 197.
Messrs. SCAMMON, MCCAGG & FULLER, for the appellee.
Having re-let the work before the defendant, as the jury decided, refused or neglected to perform it, the plaintiff has no cause of action. 2 Pars. on Cont. (new ed.) 677-679, and notes. Mr. JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:
The Chamber of Commerce of Chicago employed Sollitt to do the carpenters' work on their building. Before the time had arrived for commencing work, he addressed to them the following letter:
“CHICAGO, July 13, 1864.
Gentlemen of the Building Committee,
Chamber of Commerce--
It is with the deepest regret, that I am obliged, from the force of circumstances, to announce to you my entire inability to proceed with my contract for Chamber of Commerce building as the matter now stands, which is briefly thus:
In a very short time after I had signed the contract for the work, and before I had time to purchase any lumber for it, or even to make arrangement for doing so, lumber advanced in value $3 or $4 per M., and is now $5 higher on an average than it was at that time, making an absolute loss to me of fully $3,500 in that article alone.
I do not wish to be understood as declining to go on with the work, as I intend always to fulfil my contracts both in letter and spirit; but under the present extraordinary state of public affairs, and knowing my own inability to fulfil it without some assistance from you, I make bold to ask of you to make good to me the loss I shall sustain on the lumber, which is clearly, to my mind, $3,500. This sum will, beyond all question, if public affairs remain as they now are, be a dead loss to me, and, with the risk I assume in the other parts of the work, places me in a very peculiar situation.
I would therefore respectfully ask of you, gentlemen, that you advance me the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars, to enable me to purchase the lumber, and if no improvement in public affairs should take place until the work is finished, that you consider said advance as a part of the contract, making the sum to be paid me $45,500.
JOHN SOLLITT.”
To this letter they replied as follows:
“CHICAGO, July 13, 1864.
JOHN SOLLITT, ESQ.:
DEAR SIR--I am desired, by the Chamber of Commerce, to notify you that your communication of this date to them was duly received and considered, and unanimously rejected.
Also, I am directed by them to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanford v. McGill
... ... Duluth 5,000 bushels of flax, through brokers in that city ... In his testimony he speaks of this flax as being the ... agreement. In Chamber of Commerce v ... Sollitt , 43 Ill. 519, it appeared ... ...
-
Pallardy-watrous Ins. Agency, Inc. v. M. Tucker, Inc.
... ... exchequer chamber, on appeal, in 1872, reversing the decree ... of the court ... Messersmith, 19 Iowa, 179; ... Chamber of Commerce v. Sollitt, 43 Ill. 519; ... Follansbee v. Adams, 86 Ill ... ...
-
Oppenheimer Bros., Inc. v. Joyce & Co., Gen. No. 47411
...Co. v. Richards, 1894, 152 Ill. 59, 80, 38 N.E. 773, 30 L.R.A. 33; Follansbee v. Adams, 1877, 86 Ill. 13, 15, 16; Chamber of Commerce, etc. v. Sollitt, 1866, 43 Ill. 519, 523; DeLeuw, Cather & Co. v. City of Joliet, 1945, 327 Ill.App. 453, 465-466, 64 N.E.2d 779; Woods v. Village of LaGrang......
-
Sullivan v. Mcmillan
... ... chamber, on appeal, in 1872, reversing the decree of the ... court ... Messersmith, 19 Iowa, 179; Chamber of Commerce v ... Sollitt, 43 Ill. 519; Follansbee v. Adams, 86 ... ...