{
  "id": 5176999,
  "name": "Philiskey E. Stanley, for the use of James A. Brophy, v. Samuel P. McConnell",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stanley v. McConnell",
  "decision_date": "1896-06-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "591",
  "last_page": "595",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 591"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 477,
    "char_count": 8341,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "sha256": "d4f0877d2c036d9415d4fdbab249c116fcf858fbe1337a0895a6675952c8aab5",
    "simhash": "1:bf75aab21e421979",
    "word_count": 1471
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Philiskey E. Stanley, for the use of James A. Brophy, v. Samuel P. McConnell."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThis was an action to recover a balance of $362.72 claimed to be due to appellant for moneys paid out and advanced at appellee\u2019s request for certificates of tax sales, commissions and carrying charges, in connection with certain of appellee\u2019s real estate..\nThe cause was submitted to the court without a jury, and resulted in finding the issues in favor of the appellee, the defendant below.\n27o propositions of law were submitted to the court, and the only questions there decided, or here to be reviewed, were ones of fact.\nThe appellant, Stanley, was, at the time in question, collecting rents for the appellee, and the particular controversy between them arose out of the giving by appellee of the following order:\n\u201c Chicago, III.,. Aug. 27, 1889.\nMessrs. P. E. Stanley & Co.\nGentlemen : Please pay the taxes for me on the follow-\ning pieces of real estate : Lot 67, Culver\u2019s Add. to Chicago, $60.21; lot 4, block eleven (11), Duncan\u2019s Add., $227.93; lot 1, Superior Court Commissioners\u2019 Sub. of S. one-half of the 27. two-thirds of that part of block 95, north of south thirty-three feet thereof, Canal Trustees\u2019 Sub. of W. one-half of Sec. 27, 39, $172.10. This last piece of property is the one you leased for me.\nVery truly,\nS. P. McConnell.\u201d\nConcerning the authority so conferred, and what was done thereunder, the appellant, Stanley, testified: \u201c Under this order I bought the taxes in the name of James A. Brophy. I mean by that, that I bid this property off at tax sale. The certificates came into the office, were paid for and money borrowed on them. I advanced the money and paid for the certificates. * * * The firm of which I was a member was, at that time, collecting rents and handling property for Judge McConnell. * \"\" * I subsequently made a present of the tax business which was conducted by me to James A. Brophy. I turned over absolutely all interest in the tax' business to Mr. Brophy. I do not claim any interest whatever in any of these purchases made prior to turning it over to Mr. Brophy. About the fall of 1889, or spring of 1890, I turned it over to Brophy. The money advanced on these sales was turned over along with the other. It was a carrying account in the office. The money was borrowed on that, with others, and I turned it over to Brophy. * * * Subsequently I called on Judge McConnell about this bill, and tried to collect it\u2014probably about six months after the time of the purchase. He was too hard up to pay it. * * * I went there in the interest of the legal holder of that security, or whatever you call it, to collect it. * * * I told him the amount due. I don\u2019t remember the amount due at that time. The amount due now is about $362. He said he would pay it as soon as he could. * * * I went in the interest of the legal holder of the indebtedness, who was William H. Burnet. I borrowed the money of him to advance to pay for the taxes of Judge McConnell, and he held the tax certificates at that time. * * *\nThe money has never been repaid to Burnet yet. The order introduced in evidence is the order upon which I acted. That was the written instructions he gave me after I had made arrangements to buy his taxes at tax sale and protect him.\u201d\nIt was testified by one who was bookkeeper for Brophy, and by another who was clerk for both Stanley and Brophy, that they severally presented the account to appellee on repeated occasions, and asked for its payment, and that appellee on various grounds excused himself, but never objected to its correctness.\nThe clerk also testified that he left a copy of the account with appellee, and that on one occasion appellee offered to pay him $100 to apply on it, but that he, the witness, declined to accept part payment for lack of authority to do so.\nOn the other hand, the appellee denied having at any time, in any manner authorized Stanley to permit the property to go to sale and buy it in, and denied any knowledge that such a course had been adopted by Stanley until long afterward, when, having made a sale of one of the pieces of property, he first discovered the method that had been pursued by Stanley, and he testified that he then promptly repudiated the action and disavowed Stanley\u2019s authority to do so. He admitted that he did at one time offer to pay $100 to the clerk who presented the bill to him, in settlement of the controversy, but that the offer was declined, and such was probably the true scope of the offer he made, for it is unreasonable to suppose that one having authority to collect an account should refuse to accept $100 to apply on it, especially where, as here, there had been credited on the account other partial payments by way of rents collected, etc.\nIt was also shown by appellee that Brophy had served upon appellee the usual notices that the property had been sold for taxes, and of the time of the expiration of the right to redeem therefrom.\nWe need hardly say that permitting the property to go to sale and buying it in at such sale, was a manifest departure from the authority given to pay the taxes. It may have been a convenient method of enabling Stanley to procure money to keep the property from being sold to strangers, who would hold the tax certificates of sale adversely to appellee, but it was of course wholly unwarranted by the authority to pay the taxes.\nTrue there is a possible intimation, at the close of Stanley\u2019s testimony, that previous to the written instructions above quoted, there was an arrangement between himself and appellee that he should buy the property at the tax sale, but it is very vague, and is not corroborated by anything else in the record, and if it were true, the rule would probably require it to be held that any such prior arrangement was merged in the subsequent writing, under which, admittedly, Stanley acted.\nThe proposition of appellant, that because appellee redeemed the piece of property sold by him from the tax sale, which redemption money was received by Brophy and credited on appellee\u2019s account, the appellee thereby accepted the fruits of the transaction done by Stanley and ratified it, is without much foundation. Appellee has apparently accepted the situation as best he may, leaving to appellant whatever remedies he may have under his tax purchase, and taking his own course to be relieved from the effect of such purchase whenever the situation may confront him. The appellant can hardly say that by appellee redeeming from the sale, and thereby making it possible for the appellant to get back his money, the appellee in effect ratified the tax sale and appellant\u2019s proceedings with reference to it.\nThe final point, that an account stated was proved, comes closer to being well taken. By force of mere numbers of witnesses, the preponderance might be said to be in favor of appellant.\nBut it is a long established and statutory rule that the finding of the trial court upon a bare question of fact will not, upon appeal, be disturbed when the evidence is conflicting, except for reasons sufficient to justify the overturning of the verdict of a jury.\nThere appears to be no sufficient error in the record to warrant us in disturbing the judgment of the Superior Court, and it will accordingly be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Oliver & Mecartney, attorneys for appellant.",
      "James H. Wilkerson, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Philiskey E. Stanley, for the use of James A. Brophy, v. Samuel P. McConnell.\n1. Practice\u2014Trial by Court\u2014No Propositions of Law Submitted.\u2014 Where a cause is submitted to the court for trial without a jury, and no propositions of law are submitted, the only questions which can be reviewed by the Appellate Court are questions of fact.\n2. Agents\u2014Excess of Authority.\u2014Permitting property to go to sale for taxes and to buy it in at such sale, is a manifest departure from an authority given to pay taxes.\n3. Judgments\u2014 Upon Questions of Fact.\u2014The finding of a trial court upon a bare question of fact, will not, upon appeal, be disturbed when the evidence is conflicting, unless for reasons which would be sufficient to justify the overturning of the verdict of a jury.\nAssumpsit, for money paid out and advanced. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Henry V. Freeman, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896. \u25a0\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 11, 1896.\nOliver & Mecartney, attorneys for appellant.\nJames H. Wilkerson, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0591-01",
  "first_page_order": 589,
  "last_page_order": 593
}
