Winchester v. Mary E. Grosvenor.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1868 |
| Citation | 48 Ill. 517,1868 WL 5162 |
| Parties | SARAH D. WINCHESTERv.MARY E. GROSVENOR. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Mr. GEORGE F. HARDING, for the appellant.
Messrs. BARKER & TULEY, for the appellee.
This was a bill in equity, filed by appellant, in the Superior Court of Chicago, against appellee, to restrain the entry of a judgment in the Superior Court of Chicago, and from further proceedings in the case.
The bill alleges, that the suit at law was brought by attachment, against the property of complainant, who was, and still is, a married woman; that she was defeated in her defense by her husband; that large costs have been awarded against her; enormous obligations imposed upon her; and disastrous losses inflicted upon her by the malignant and wilful misconduct of appellee and her husband as her agent; that complainant, in the name of her husband, entered into a co-partnership with Thomas Grosvenor, in the brewing of ale in the city of Chicago; complainant furnished the money and was to keep the books; that it afterwards appeared that Grosvenor claimed that he was carrying on and conducting the business in his name as an ostensible partner, but in fact for the benefit of his wife and with her means.
That on a dissolution of the partnership, the product of the business, the ale, hops and malt, were sold and turned over to complainant at the sum of one thousand dollars, the price agreed upon by the parties; that at that time about four hundred dollars was left unpaid, upon the bill of sale, and another contract was made, being a part of the agreement for a dissolution, by which Grosvenor agreed to sell complainant two hundred ale barrels, for which she was to pay three dollars and fifty cents each on delivery, and Grosvenor was to give his personal attention and labor, for three months, to the business, free of charge; that the price of the barrels was to be credited on complainant's capital furnished in the business, and which Grosvenor was to pay back to her; that it was at the time agreed that the partnership books should be settled and balanced, which had never been done; that Grosvenor, finding that he would fall in debt to complainant on a settlement, prevented such settlement, and failed to furnish his labor in the business; that she had lost thereby $1,000, as damages; that she was thereby compelled to sell out at a loss of two thousand dollars.
That Grosvenor and wife had obtained money, coal and ale casks amounting to $112; that she has always been ready to settle the partnership accounts, but Grosvenor has refused; that Grosvenor caused an attachment to be levied on the malt house whilst complainant was in the act of moving it, thereby preventing her from malting 5,000 bushels of barley therein, which she had done at another place at a loss of five hundred dollars; that the attachment was also levied upon a quantity of personal property, which was kept by the sheriff at large expense--nearly equaling its value; that it was served on one Fleming, who was indebted to complainant in the sum of $4,000, which was then secure, but has since become insecure, if not altogether lost; that complainant purchased forty barrels of ale of Grosvenor, at six dollars per barrel, on his representation that it was good, but which was valueless, whereby she lost $240; that he represented the malt house as being perfect and complete, when it was not; that he owned it, when he but owned it in part.
That appellee claims to be the principal; that Thomas Grosvenor was her agent, and all of the property sold by him to complainant belonged to her, and that she was, for that reason, conducting the suit at law against complainant; that appellee is, therefore, liable for the acts of her agent, and the losses and indebtedness created by him are a proper set-off in that suit; that he, as such agent, commenced the suit at law on the 18th of February, 1866, by suing out a writ of attachment in the name of appellee, and at that time appellee was indebted to complainant.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laff v. John O. Butler Co.
...attorney's judgment of the case does not coincide with the court's judgment will not support a request for a new trial. (Winchester v. Grosvenor (1868), 48 Ill. 517.) Defendant has made no showing that trial counsel's conduct was due to any cause other than trial tactics with which defendan......
-
Loomis v. Freer
...81 Ill. 313; County of Clinton v. Schuster, 82 Ill. 137; Dunham v. Miller, 75 Ill. 379; Tobey v. Foreman, 79 Ill. 489; Winchester v. Grosvenor, 48 Ill. 517; Palmer v. Bethard, 66 Ill. 529. Evidence tending to prove payment may be given under the general issue: Crews v. Bleakley, 16 Ill. 21;......
-
Donovan v. Miller
... ... not authorize relief by injunction against a judgment at law ... ( Winchester v. Grosvenor, 48 Ill. 517; Lowe v ... Hamilton, 132 Ind. 406, 31 N.E. 1117; Mouser v ... ...
-
Lee v. Imperial Elevator Co.
...371; Wynn v. Wilson, Hempst. 698, Fed. Cas. No. 18,116; Chester v. Apperson, 4 Heisk. 639; Shricker v. Field, 9 Iowa 366; Winchester v. Grosvenor, 48 Ill. 517; Lewis v. Sumner, 13 Met. 269; Smith v. 2 M'Cord, Eq. 406; Lawson v. Bettison, 12 Ark. 401; African Methodist Bethel Church v. Carma......