The Howe Sewing Mach. Co. v. Layman
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 1878 WL 9798,88 Ill. 39 |
| Parties | THE HOWE SEWING MACHINE COMPANYv.SAMUEL O. LAYMAN et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. CHARLES S. ZANE, Judge, presiding.
Mr. WILLIAM L. GROSS, for the appellant.
This was a suit brought on a bond executed by appellees to the Howe Sewing Machine Company, to recover for breaches of its conditions. It appears that Layman and Duncan undertook to sell sewing machines for the company, the company to furnish machines, with the usual attachments and findings, they agreeing to sell and account for the same. But before they entered upon this employment, they, with the other appellees as their sureties, entered into a bond in the penalty of $2,000, conditioned, that Layman and Duncan should faithfully discharge the duties of the employment, return the property placed in their hands and not sold, and account to the company for what they should sell, as well as any other property of the eompany that might come to their hands, and they and their sureties would pay to the company any indebtedness and discharge any liability that existed at the time the bond was executed, of Layman and Duncan to the company, or that might afterwards in any manner be created by them and arising out of their employment by the company.
It was further provided, that the company might change the character of the employment within the scope of the business of the company, and the bond should extend to and embrace the faithful performance by Layman and Duncan of such new employment; and the company might take from them any other or further security without affecting the liability of the sureties.
The written agreement entered into by Layman and Duncan some seven days after the execution of the bond, specified that they were to canvass for the company for the sale of machines in Virden and vicinity, devoting their whole time and attention to such business, and to furnish, each, one horse and harness, but to be supplied with a wagon each, suited to their needs as canvassers, by the company, which were to be returned in as good condition as when received, ordinary wear and tear excepted.
They bind themselves to sell, and account for the property and its proceeds; as compensation for their services they were to receive 35 per cent of the amount of sales; they were to be furnished with two wagons within ten days of the date of the agreement, and one wagon was furnished according to agreement, but the other was not for about forty days afterwards. About the 24th day of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brant v. Gallup
...78 Ill. 492; Russell v. Minter, 83 Ill. 150; King v. Haley, 86 Ill. 106; Wray v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. 86 Ill. 424; Howe S. M. Co. v. Lyman, 88 Ill. 39. An erroneous instruction which assumes to dispose of the entire case is not cured by others which may be correct: Roach v. The People, 77 I......
-
Konold v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co.
... ... Moore, 5 Mich. 368, 380; ... Andreas v. Ketcham, 77 Ill. 377; Howe, etc., Co ... v. Layman, 88 Ill. 39; Mendelsohn v. Anaheim Lighter ... ...
-
The Singer Mfg. Co. v. Pike
...Co. v. Britz, 72 Ill. 256; Hewett v. Johnson, 72 Ill. 513; Hessing v. McCloskey, 37 Ill. 341; Frame v. Badger, 79 Ill. 441; Howe S. M. Co. v. Layman, 88 Ill. 39; Hite v. Blandford, 45 Ill. 9; Franz v. Rose, 89 Ill. 590; Von Glahn v. Von Glahn, 46 Ill. 134; Nichols v. Mercer, 44 Ill. 250; Cu......
-
Lionberger v. Krieger
...Md. 360; Exster Bk. v. Rogers, 7 N. H. 21, 27, 31; U. S. v. Woodman, 1 Utah, 265; Commonwealth v. Holmes, 25 Gratt. 771; Howe Sewing Mach. Co. v. Layman, 88 Ill. 39. BLACK, J. This is a suit upon the bond of the cashier of the banking corporation of which the plaintiff is the assignee, unde......