Cheboygan Paper Co. v. Swigart Paper Co.
Appellate Court of Illinois
Assumpsit. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Max Eberhardt, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Presiding Justice Baker
delivered the opinion of the court.
The statement in Moody’s letter of February 26, is not that ‘ ‘ Your offer' is accepted, ’ ’ but "Your order has gone forward to the mill for their attention.” This language cannot, in the opinion of a majority of the court, be held in acceptance of or an assent to plaintiff’s order, nor more than a statement that the writer had sent the order to the defendant for its attention. But if the first sentence of the letter, standing alone, could be held an acceptance of assent to the order, the entire letter cannot be so held because of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Courtney Shoe Co. v. E. W. Curd & SonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- International Filter Co. v. Conroe Gin, Ice & Light Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1925
- Evans v. Atlanta Paper Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
- Miller v. Illinois Life InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1930
- Armor Insulating Co. v. National Gypsum Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1944
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.