Trustees of Sch. v. C. H. Mccormick & Bros..
| Decision Date | 30 April 1866 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | TRUSTEES OF SCHOOLSv.C. H. MCCORMICK & BROTHERS. |
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of De Kalb county; the Hon. T. D. MURPHY, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit brought in the court below by Cyrus H. McCormick, William S. McCormick and Leander J. McCormick, as partners, under the style and firm of C. H. McCormick & Brothers, against the trustees of schools of township number forty, north range, three east of the third principal meridian, to recover the value of a reaping machine which had been placed by the plaintiffs in the hands of one Goodrich, as their agent, for sale, and which Goodrich turned over to the defendants in payment of a debt he owed them, they having knowledge at the time that Goodrich had possession of the machine only as agent for its sale.
The only question presented here is, whether the proof showed a subsequent ratification of the transaction by the plaintiffs.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, upon which judgment was entered. The defendants thereupon sued out this writ of error.
Messrs. ALLEN & RANDALL for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. EMERY A. STORRS and Mr. CHARLES KELLUM, for the defendants in error.
Goodrich, being agent of the defendants in error at Malta, in De Kalb county, for the sale of reaping machines, and being also in debt to the trustees of school township 40 north range 3 east, for money loaned, turned over to them a reaper in exchange for his note. The trustees sold the machine to one Buskirk, taking therefor his note secured by mortgage, which Buskirk paid after the commencement of this suit. The defendants in error brought this suit against the trustees for the value of the machine, and recovered.
We think it sufficiently appears that the trustees knew Goodrich had possession of this machine only as agent for its sale, and such being the fact they clearly had no right to receive it from him in payment of his own debt. They were lending themselves to an act of fraud on the part of an agent toward his principal, and appropriating the property of McCormick to pay the debt of Goodrich. The only question in the case is, whether McCormick, through his general agent Champlin, ratified the transaction with a full knowledge of the facts, and settled with Goodrich, by taking the Talbot notes. Goodrich swears that he held some notes against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chicago v. Sykes
...v. Brooks et al. 20 Ill. 116; Calhoun Co. use, etc. v. Buck et al. 27 Ill. 440; Pfund et al. v. Zimmerman, 29 Ill. 269; Trustees, etc. v. McCormick Bros. 41 Ill. 323. All that appellant was entitled to ask was given by the court, and should not be repeated in other instructions: Hesing v. M......
-
Garvey v. Scott
... ... R. R. Co. v. Miller, 71 Ill. 463; Frame v. Badger, 79 Ill. 441; Trustees v. McCormick, 41 Ill. 323; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. George, 19 Ill. 510; ... ...
-
Hogue v. Edwards
...given: Stout v. McAdams, 2 Scam. 67; Reeder v. Purdy, 41 Ill. 280; Brown v. Graham, 24 Ill. 628; Webber v. Brown, 38 Ill. 87; Trustees v. McCormick, 41 Ill. 323; Ten Eyck v. Harris, 47 Ill. 268; Adams v. Smith, 58 Ill. 417; Carter v. Carter, 62 Ill. 439; Herrick v. Gary, 65 Ill. 101; Frantz......
-
Nels v. Reiter (In re Reiter's Estate)
...of trust to escape a liability arising from that presumption. Mechem on Agency, sec. 785; Story on Agency, secs. 229, 230; Trustees v. McCormick, 41 Ill. 323;Cottom v. Holliday, 59 Ill. 176.” New York courts reached the same conclusion in Re Gaul's Will, 160 Misc. 123, 289 N.Y.S. 644. For t......