Hill v. Bishop
Illinois Supreme Court
This bill by defendants in error, states that plaintiffs, in May, 1858, commenced selling and delivering to Hill, lumber, lath, doors, shingles, etc., of the kind and quality specified in an account attached. At the time of the sale no time of payment was agreed upon; but their value was due at the time of sale and delivery.
Read the full summary
This bill by defendants in error, states that plaintiffs, in May, 1858, commenced selling and delivering to Hill, lumber, lath, doors, shingles, etc., of the kind and quality specified in an account attached. At the time of the sale no time of payment was agreed upon; but their value was due at the time of sale and delivery. Sometimes plaintiffs delayed payment for a short time; but in this instance they made an agreement to wait six months from August 20,1858. The materials were used by Hill in building a house on lot, etc., in the town of Clinton, owned by Hill. That there is due…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
This petition is manifestly insufficient. It shows that the lumber was furnished upon an open general account, and without reference to its being put into any particular building, or even that it should be used in any building. It would have been no violation of the agreement to purchase it, if the material bought had been used in making furniture, or any other personal property. Under our statute, no lien could be created upon any premises by such a purchase of lumber.
The decree must be reversed, and the suit remanded, with leave to the petitioner to amend his petition.
Decree reversed.
2Cited by17 opinions
- Smith v. Prime Cable of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1995
- Scoa Industries, Inc. v. HowlettAppellate Court of Illinois · 1975
- Cohon v. Oscar L. Paris Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1958
- Leonard's of Plainfield, Inc. v. DybasSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1943
- Woodruff v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1946
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.