{
  "id": 5378600,
  "name": "Clinton Company, Defendant in Error, v. Otto G. Stiles, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Clinton Co. v. Stiles",
  "decision_date": "1916-01-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,662",
  "first_page": "505",
  "last_page": "507",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 Ill. App. 505"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 5860,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.346747645310344e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48107148331813937
    },
    "sha256": "cdc2517b83fd1ccfd27150a97043cb7aea13d2f6e986cbac0b4f750c4908d879",
    "simhash": "1:62730b86ac88848d",
    "word_count": 979
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:24:45.151974+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Clinton Company, Defendant in Error, v. Otto G. Stiles, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Frauds, Statute of, \u00a7 13 \u2014what constitutes original undertaking. A contract made for the benefit of a third person is an original undertaking and is not required to be in writing under the Statute of Frauds, such a contract not being within the statute.\n5. Contracts, \u00a7 349 \u2014when third person may maintain action on contract for his benefit. In order that a third person may maintain an action on a contract made for his benefit, it is not necessary that the consideration of the contract move from such third person, providing he elects to affirm the promise made in his behalf.\n6. Contracts, \u00a7 349 \u2014what constitutes affirmation by third person of promise on his behalf. A third person who brings suit on a contract made for his benefit thereby affirms the promise made in his behalf.\n7. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014what constitutes waiver of objection to statement of claim. A defendant waives objection to plaintiff\u2019s statement of claim in that such claim does not state a cause of action by pleading and proceeding to trial on the merits.\n8. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014when defense not pleaded in affidavit of merits unavailable. In. an action to recover for goods sold and delivered, the defenses that the goods delivered are unsatisfactory or not in accordance with the contract are not available to defendant on the trial if he has not pleaded such defenses in his affidavit of merits, since defendant on the trial is limited to the defenses made by his pleading.\n9. Trial, \u00a7 204 \u2014when verdict properly directed. Where defendant offers no evidence and plaintiff\u2019s evidence establishes his claim, it is proper to direct a verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed.\n10. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1523 \u2014when verdict not reversed on appeal. Where defendant offers no evidence and plaintiff\u2019s evidence establishes his claim, a court of review will not reverse although there were errors in instructions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles R. Napier and Charles S. McIlvaine, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Daniel P. Trude, for defendant in error; M. Marso, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clinton Company, Defendant in Error, v. Otto G. Stiles, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,662.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 17, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Clinton Company, a corporation-, plaintiff, against Otto G. Stiles, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicag'o, to recover for printed matter sold and delivered. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for five hundred and fifty dollars, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.\nOne Gustave H. Knospe and defendant were doing business under the name of Northern Investment Company. Knospe contracted with plaintiff in the name of the Investment Company for printing matter designated as \u201cBank of Prosperity Certificates.\u201d The whole order was for 4,250,000 certificates, 1,250,000 of which were delivered to and paid for by Knospe. Afterwards defendant bought from Knospe the business of the company, assuming its liabilities as part of the consideration and continuing to transact business in its name. Among other liabilities assumed was plaintiff\u2019s claim in this action, although defendant contended otherwise. The certificates were delivered to defendant at his place of business, but he rejected them. Defendant wrote to plaintiff:\n\u201cThe sample of the Bank of Prosperity bills that you sent to me are not quite up to standard, either in regard to quality or color of the sample on which you contracted to furnish me. I hereby notify you that I shall refuse to accept same and look to you to reimburse me on any losses I may sustain by being delayed on the advertising matter.\nNorthern Investment Co.,\nPer O. G. Stiles, Mgr.\u201d\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Evidence, \u00a7 154 \u2014when letter constitutes admission of assumption of liability by third person. In an action to recover for printed matter sold and delivered, where the contract for such printed matter was made by one whose liabilities defendant assumed as part of the consideration by which he purchased such person\u2019s assets and business, and where the defense was that defendant never assumed liability to plaintiff, a letter written by defendant to plaintiff, complaining of the quality of the printed matter delivered as being in breach of a contract, and threatening to hold plaintiff liable for such breach, held to he an admission of defendant\u2019s assumption of liability on such other person\u2019s contract with plaintiff.\n2. Frauds, Statute of, \u00a7 22 \u2014when contract assuming debts not within statute. In an action to recover for printed matter sold and delivered, where plaintiff\u2019s cause of action was based on the assumption by defendant of the liabilities of one who had contracted for the sale and delivery of the printed matter sued for, such assumption being part of the consideration of the purchase of such third person\u2019s assets and business, contract held not void under the Statute of Frauds as being a promise not in writing to pay the debt of another, the statute having no application to such a case.\n3. Contracts, \u00a7 349 \u2014when action maintainable by party in in terest. A third person for whose benefit a contract has been made may maintain an action for breach of the contract.\nThe case was tried by jury. At the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence defendant moved for a peremptory instruction in its favor, which was denied, and the case went to the jury on plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendant not offering any evidence. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff.\nCharles R. Napier and Charles S. McIlvaine, for plaintiff in error.\nDaniel P. Trude, for defendant in error; M. Marso, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0505-01",
  "first_page_order": 527,
  "last_page_order": 529
}