Lawrence v. Johnson
Illinois Supreme Court
Appear from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. L. E. Payson, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Sardis S. Lawrence, for the use of Mary A. Bedell, against William Oleary,. Darius Johnson, Adolph Brucker and Henry Greénebaum, on a promissory note executed by the defendants. Cleary was not served with process.
Read the full summary
Appear from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. L. E. Payson, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Sardis S. Lawrence, for the use of Mary A. Bedell, against William Oleary,. Darius Johnson, Adolph Brucker and Henry Greénebaum, on a promissory note executed by the defendants. Cleary was not served with process. The other defendants appeared and pleaded that they signed the note as sureties for Cleary, and that one Lucius Winston, then being the holder of the note, extended the time of payment of the same without their consent. To this plea the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam :
In this case, Winston being merely an agent to collect the note, had no power to extend the time of payment, and thus discharge the sureties, without the consent of his principal. Nolan v. Jackson, 16 Ill. 274.
We are also of opinion that the defendants did not prove a contract to extend the time of payment, except one of a conditional .character. Even if Winston had had authority, he made no binding contract.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brown v. CoffeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Lewis v. Atlas Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1945
- Many, Blanc & Co. v. JacobsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1909