Legal Opinion

Kinser v. Calumet Fire Clay Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 1, 1896PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Assumpsit, for goods sold. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Adams, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Waterman

Appellant contends that an agent of the plaintiff, engaged in selling its goods, is presumed to be authorized to sell the same, conditioned that the prices therefor shall be such that the buyer shall not lose anything on a contract he is undertaking.

There is no evidence that the plaintiff ever heard that its agent had so agreed, until this suit was begun, long after the sewer pipe had been sent, received, and put in the ground.

The defendant repeatedly promised to pay in full for the pipe, making no claim for indemnity against loss on his contract. ■

' An agent to sell is not authorized to make…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Toledo, Wabash & Western Railway Co. v. ElliottIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
  2. S. F. Hess & Co. v. HeegaardAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Halladay v. UnderwoodAppellate Court of Illinois · 1900

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API