{ "id": 5175937, "name": "E. S. Rice v. Western Fuse and Explosives Company", "name_abbreviation": "Rice v. Western Fuse & Explosives Co.", "decision_date": "1896-06-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "603", "last_page": "605", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 Ill. App. 603" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "36 Ill. App. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5009857 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/36/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 297", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5064002 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/44/0297-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 Ill. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3080191 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/144/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ill. 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "88 Ill. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5338423 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/88/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "36 Ill. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5215089 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/36/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 Ill. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2686066 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/79/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ill. 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5343991 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/87/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 859929 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/37/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5151976 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/59/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ill. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5215089 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/36/0081-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 335, "char_count": 4253, "ocr_confidence": 0.553, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.56804239086075e-08, "percentile": 0.5255823795132457 }, "sha256": "6d31dbe2f01bdede2c801bcb47ff96cd1fc1b3830bceda332f654490d48d5fae", "simhash": "1:180d50a39ca2b63c", "word_count": 746 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "E. S. Rice v. Western Fuse and Explosives Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nFebruary 2, 1891, these parties, the appellant being described as \u201c E. S. Bice, Gen\u2019l Agent for E. J. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., * * * party of the second part,\u201d in the body of the paper, and signing it \u201cE. S. Bice, General Agent,\u201d made an agreement in writing, by which the appellee agreed to deliver to the appellant\u2014if the agreement is to be treated as personal with him\u2014fuse in Chicago, \u201c it being understood that the present prices for such fuse * * * shall be \u201d so and so.\nJune 12,1893, the appellant telegraphed for two hundred and seventy-five cases of fuse, to which appellee replied the next day that it would ship, but at prices considerable higher than those named in the agreement. The appellant, on the next day, answered, \u201c Ship at once. Drainage work on. Must have fuse.\u201d\nThe appellee shipped the fuse, and the appellant sent his check for it at the old prices, but refused to pay the residue; hence this suit.\nThe appellant testified somewhat, and desired to testify more, as to his authority to act as agent for Du Pont; but the brief of the appellant does not urge that any error was committed in rejecting testimony. We need not, therefore, consider such a question. It is waived by silence. Cook v. Moulton, 59 Ill. App. 428.\nThe testimony he did give is not enough to show that he had authority to make for Du Pont such agreement. It therefore binds him personally. Wheeler v. Read, 36 Ill. 81. Apt words are in it to charge him, in which respect it is unlike Neufield v. Beidler, 37 Ill. App. 34, and other cases cited by the appellant in which it has been held that the person signing was not personally bound.\nHis second point is that the higher price can not be recovered. He ordered at that price. The prices named in the agreement were only present prices, with no implication even that they would continue. There was no duress even under the extreme doctrine of Pemberton v. Williams, 87 Ill. 15.\nThere it was the one and only deed that the plaintiff must have. Here the world was open for the appellant to search for fuse. The bargain he made, by ordering the fuse after being informed of the price, he must abide by.\nCases, that offers by correspondence can not be retracted, if accepted promptly before notice of retraction, have no resemblance to this. These are the only points argued, and the judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary" } ], "attorneys": [ "Thornton & Chancellor, attorneys for appellant.", "Flower, Smith & Musgrave, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "E. S. Rice v. Western Fuse and Explosives Company.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Errors Waived\u2014Where the brief of the appellant fails to urge that any error was committed in rejecting testimony, such errors are waived by silence.\n2. Agents\u2014 When Personally Liable.\u2014Where a party acting as an agent makes a contract outside of his authority, it binds him personally, but not his principal.\n3. Contracts\u2014For Purchase of Goods\u2014Prices.\u2014The fact that the parties had a contract in writing between them for a certain amount of fuse, at certain prices, does not necessarily control the prices of fuse ordered afterward, and with the knowledge that prices had advanced.\nAssumpsit.\u2014Goods sold and delivered. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 11, 1896.\nThornton & Chancellor, attorneys for appellant.\nFlower, Smith & Musgrave, attorneys for appellee.\nIt is a well established rule of law that a party signing a contract in the manner this was signed makes himself personally liable. The words Agent, etc.,\u201d are merely descriptive.\nIn Powers v. Briggs, 79 Ill. 493, the action was on the following note:\n\u201c One year after date, we, the trustees of the Seventh Presbyterian Church, promise to pay to the order of H. G. Powers six hundred dollars, value received, with interest at six per cent per annum.\nA. H. Briggs,\nLouis B. Kelley,\nJohn Corbett,\nF. D. Marshall,\nTrustees.\u201d\nThe trustees were held personally liable, although it was shown the debt was that of the church.\nTo the same effect are Wheeler v. Reed, 36 Ill. 81; Bickford v. Bank, 42 Ill. 237; Trustees v. Rantenberg, 88 Ill. 219; Hypes v. Grillen, 87 Ill. 134; McNeil v. Shober Co., 144 Ill. 238; same case, 44 Ill. App. 297; Williams v. Miami Co., 36 Ill. App. 107." }, "file_name": "0603-01", "first_page_order": 601, "last_page_order": 603 }