Wilson Sewing Mach. Co. v. Boyington
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 1874 WL 9036,73 Ill. 534 |
| Parties | WILSON SEWING MACHINE COMPANYv.WILLIAM W. BOYINGTON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. DICKEY & CAULFIELD, for the appellant.
Mr. FREDERICK ULMANN, for the appellee.
This was an action brought by William W. Boyington, an architect, residing in Chicago, against the Wilson Sewing Machine Company, an Ohio corporation, to recover for services as an architect, in drawing plans for a building. The cause was tried by the court below without a jury, and judgment rendered against the company for two hundred dollars, from which the company has appealed.
The errors assigned present but the single question, whether the evidence is sufficient to support the finding and judgment. There is no dispute that the plans were prepared and worth the sum charged. The contest is as to the company's liability to pay.
This company had a branch office in Chicago, devoted to its business of manufacturing and selling sewing machines.
In behalf of the plaintiff below, the plaintiff himself testified, that in June, 1872, Mr. Wilson, (the president, executive manager, and principal stockholder of the company,) together with Mr. Sawyer, (the manager and superintendent of its Chicago office,) called at his office, and stated his business to be to procure plans for the erection of a building for the defendant; that they had some conversation as to the style of building most suitable for defendant. No agreement was made then, but Wilson and Sawyer left, Wilson saying he would communicate with him further. Afterwards, at the company's office in Chicago, Williams, (the associate manager of the Chicago office), gave Boyington more specific instructions as to the style of building wanted, etc. At the same interview, Williams told plaintiff to make the plan as speedily as possible, as the company was in need of better quarters and wanted to decide upon the style of building.
The plan was made, and Williams said it suited them, but owing to a defect in the title of the lot they had bargained for, they could not go on with the building.
Howe, draughtsman, and foreman in Boyington's office, testified, that on June 14 or 15, 1872, in the absence of Boyington, Williams called at the office, said he was the defendant's agent, and wanted some plans for a building to be erected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Ward
...Chicago Building Soc. v. Crowell, 65 Ill. 453; Hough v. Cook Co. Land Co. 73 Ill. 23; Bradley v. Ballard, 55 Ill. 413; Wilson Sewing M. Co. v. Boyington, 73 Ill. 534; Aurora, etc. Soc. v. Paddock, 80 Ill. 263; Hoyt v. Thompson, 19 N. Y. 218; Allegheny City v. McClurken, 41 Penn. 89; Maher v......
-
Land v. Dixon Nat'l Bank.
...liable in the character they hold themselves or their agents out to the world: Bulkley v. Derby Fishing Co., 2 Conn. 255; Wilson S. M. Co. v. Boyington, 73 Ill. 534; Perkins v. Washington Ins. Co., 4 Cowen, 660; Bank U. S. v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 70-89. Bankers are presumed to know the sign......
-
The Indianapolis v. Dawson
... ... of the officers of appellant that the company was his employer: Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Boyington, 73 Ill. 534; I. & St. L. R. R. Co. v ... ...
-
Mathias v. White Sulphur Springs. Ass'n.
... ... Wait v. Association (N. H.) 23 Atl. 77, and Machine Co. v. Boyington, 73 Ill. 534, were both suits to recover for services, as architects, in ... ...