Sears v. Swift & Co.
Appellate Court of Illinois
Assumpsit, on a contract of guaranty. Error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Nathaniel C. Sears, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1896.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Waterman
If the guaranty is to be construed, as is urged, as applying only to purchases that had then been made, the clause that it could be revoked upon ten days written notice becomes an absurdity.
Being a continuing guaranty, were the guarantors entitled to notice of the acceptance thereof ?
Where there is a mere proposal to guarantee, there is no meeting of minds until the offer is accepted, and notice to the guarantor of the acceptance of his offer is necessary in order to bind him. A. & E. Ency. of Law, Vol. 9-78; Ruffner v. Love, 33 Ill. App. 601; Neagle v. Sprague, 63 Ill. App. 25.
Until…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Davis v. WellsSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Lawrence v. McCalmontSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- Taussig v. ReidIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Estate of Rapp v. Phœnix InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
- Ruffner v. LoveAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stone-Ordean-Wells Co. v. HelmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Martin v. SparrowAppellate Court of Illinois · 1930
- Pabst Brewing Co. v. LePageAppellate Court of Illinois · 1914