Silsbury v. Blumb
Illinois Supreme Court
This was a suit commenced by attachment before Smith, J. P., under extended jurisdiction of Peoria county. Judgment for plaintiff against Silsbury and Samuel Smith, for $126.08. Appeal by Silsbury to Circuit Court. Trial by jury as to him, and verdict for same amount. Motion for new trial overruled, and judgment. The bill of exceptions shows, that the cause of action was an account for hardware, amounting to $176.32. Credits of $250 indorsed.
Read the full summary
This was a suit commenced by attachment before Smith, J. P., under extended jurisdiction of Peoria county. Judgment for plaintiff against Silsbury and Samuel Smith, for $126.08. Appeal by Silsbury to Circuit Court. Trial by jury as to him, and verdict for same amount. Motion for new trial overruled, and judgment. The bill of exceptions shows, that the cause of action was an account for hardware, amounting to $176.32. Credits of $250 indorsed. Plaintiff below disclaimed any other cause of action; alleged contract to furnish the hardware, and defendant below denied any such contract and all…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
It appears, from the evidence in this case, that Frye, Smith & Co. contracted with Charles R. Carroll for slops, to feed a quantity of cattle, at Ms distillery. Carroll, by the agreement, was not to furnish pens or stables for the cattle'. Frye, Smith & Co. contracted with defendant in error to build the pens. Carroll, however, agreed to allow Frye, Smith & Go. the cost of the pens, out of the price of the slops. Carroll furnished and paid for the lumber employed in erecting the pens, and Frye, Smith & Go. were to furnish the labor, and other materials. After the work had progressed to some…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Northern Assurance Co. v. Chicago Mutual Building & Loan Ass'nIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
- Farmers & Merchants Bank v. NarvidAppellate Court of Illinois · 1931
- Ferraro v. AugustineAppellate Court of Illinois · 1964