Seery v. Socks
Illinois Supreme Court
This suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace of "Woodford county, by appellees, against appellant, as agent of Eobinson & Dunham' in which appellees recovered judgment for $65, and the same was appealed to the Circuit Court.
Read the full summary
This suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace of "Woodford county, by appellees, against appellant, as agent of Eobinson & Dunham' in which appellees recovered judgment for $65, and the same was appealed to the Circuit Court. Trial was had in said Circuit Court, at the December term thereof, 1861, and the jury found a verdict for appellees for $60.60. Whereupon appellant entered a motion for a new trialwhich motion was overruled, and judgment rendered as follows: “ It is therefore ordered and adjudged by the court, that the plaintiffs have and recover of and from the said…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
There is and can be no question that Seery .acted as the agent of Eobinson <fe Dunham, in the sale of the corn sheller, and that this was well known by the purchasers. The order on its face is. given to Robinson & Dunham, in whose name Seery made the sale, and the summons is to him, as their agent. On this point, there can be no dispute. The action, then, shpuld have been against the principals, and not the agent. When the agent professes to act as agent, and discloses the name of his principal, he assumes no personal responsibility, unless he is guilty of some fraud, ■ of which there is no…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Wheeler v. ReedIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Maine v. Midland Investment Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Scaling v. KnollinAppellate Court of Illinois · 1901
- Garland v. Sperling Bros.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1892
- Brainard v. TurnerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1879
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.