Marckle v. Haskins
Illinois Supreme Court
This is an action of assumpsit, first brought by Haskins against Marckle, before a justice of the peace, who rendered a judgment for the defendant, Marckle, the present plaintiff in error. From this judgment, Haskins, the plaintiff below, took an appeal to the Circuit Court. In that court the case, by consent of the parties, was tried by the judge, without the intervention of a jury, who gave a judgment for the plaintiff in the original action for seventy-five dollars.
Read the full summary
This is an action of assumpsit, first brought by Haskins against Marckle, before a justice of the peace, who rendered a judgment for the defendant, Marckle, the present plaintiff in error. From this judgment, Haskins, the plaintiff below, took an appeal to the Circuit Court. In that court the case, by consent of the parties, was tried by the judge, without the intervention of a jury, who gave a judgment for the plaintiff in the original action for seventy-five dollars. The defendant in the Circuit Court brings the case here.
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
The questions of law raised in this case admit of no dispute. If the plaintiff knew the defendant was acting as the agent of his brother, at the time the bargain was struck, and his brother had authorized him to sell the horse, or subsequently ratified the bargain, then the warranty was the warranty of the principal and not of the agent, and the latter is not liable in this action. The only real controversy is upon the facts. There are two principal questions of fact in the case. First, was the plaintiff aware of the fact that the defendant was selling the horse as the agent of his brother ?…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cochran v. ChitwoodIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. SnellAppellate Court of Illinois · 1887
- Savage v. StewartAppellate Court of Illinois · 1922