Keiser v. Topping
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the Alton City Court; the Hon. Henry S. Baker. Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellees against the appellant, in the Alton City Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Alton City Court; the Hon. Henry S. Baker. Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellees against the appellant, in the Alton City Court. In the first count of the declaration it is alleged that the Hughes and Whyte Roof Tile Company was indebted to the plaintiffs, and in order to secure such indebtedness, pledged and delivered to the plaintiffs seventy squares of tile, which were of greater value than the amount of such indebtedness; that afterwards, the defendant, being president of the company, in consideration of the release by the plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scholfield
We are of opinion, from the evidence in the record before us, that the contract between the Hughes &AA7hvte Eoof Tile Company and appellees did not constitute a sale of the seventy squares of tile. It was, in fact, a contract giving appellees the right of possession and control of the sale of this tile, for the purpose of enabling them to appropriate so much of its proceeds to the payment of their debts as should be necessary for that purpose, and nothing more. The written instrument executed by the superintendent of the company, spoken of as a bill of sale, shows that the subject of the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Cottrell v. GersonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1938
- Davidson Grocery Co. v. JohnstonIdaho Supreme Court · 1913
- Grand Avenue Bank v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- People's State Bank v. Jacksonian Hotel Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
- Huntington v. ShermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.