Ayer v. Mead
Appellate Court of Illinois
Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Eton. John G. Rogers, Judge, presiding. This was assumpsit, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, to recover for commissions alleged to be due to the defendants in error, on the purchase by them for the plaintiff in error of 5,000 bushels of wheat, and for losses sustained by them through the failure of the plaintiff to furnish margins for their protection in the purchase and sale of…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Eton. John G. Rogers, Judge, presiding. This was assumpsit, brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, to recover for commissions alleged to be due to the defendants in error, on the purchase by them for the plaintiff in error of 5,000 bushels of wheat, and for losses sustained by them through the failure of the plaintiff to furnish margins for their protection in the purchase and sale of the wheat. In addition to the common counts, the declaration contained two special counts, the first of which avers, in…
1Opinion of the CourtWilsoh, J.
Nearly all of the material allegations in the plaintiffs’ declaration, are destitute of any proof for their support. The case seems to have been tried by the plaintiffs below, as if the purchase and sale of the wheat was a transaction on the board of trade, and that the order to buy the wheat in question is to be regarded as qualified by the customs and rules of the board in respect to margins, and the right of a broker in certain contingencies to sell the commodity purchased for the failure of his principal to furnish margins; and such is the theory upon which the first count in the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- La Porte v. WallaceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1900
- Comstock v. PriceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1902
- Kernahan v. WallaceMichigan Supreme Court · 1933