{
  "id": 5203548,
  "name": "Michael Stockbarger and Charles H. Stockbarger v. I. W. Sain",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stockbarger v. Sain",
  "decision_date": "1897-02-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "436",
  "last_page": "438",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 436"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. App. 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ill. 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        425038
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/45/0079-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 4639,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.392552054677732e-08,
      "percentile": 0.275724376208806
    },
    "sha256": "aee2b4079d66ef3820656185f04c947550b3e48e436e8d4eed119d9350c13d77",
    "simhash": "1:94d8527c1e45576b",
    "word_count": 804
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael Stockbarger and Charles H. Stockbarger v. I. W. Sain."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs\ndelivered the opinion of the Oourt.\nThe action was assumpsit by appellee against appellants to recover damages for failure to comply with an agreement in writing, which is in words and figures following:\n\u201c Sold my entire crop of broom corn to I. W. Sain, for Day & Hubbard, Chicago, or Merkle, Paris, Ill., for sixty-five dollars ($65.00) per ton, to be well baled, when dry, and smuttered corn to be rethreshed, and all soiled corn to be kept separate and baled separate. Think will have 14 tons green burl, and possibly 20, and the balance damaged by smut and fired to be delivered when all baled and dry. Eec. on the same $200.00 check. Crooked, half price.\nM. Stocksarger.\u201d\nThe more important alleged error discussed or specifically pointed out in the brief of appellant is, the verdict is contrary to the evidence; first, because it was against both appellants upon a contract entered into by but one of them; second, because it appears from the contract appellee was not one of the contracting parties, but only an agent; third, there was not sufficient proof of a breach of the agreement.\nIf the appellee entered into the contract as an agent his principal was not disclosed, and it does not clearly appear he did not intend to be bound.\nHe was therefore personally liable for its fulfillment. 1 Amer. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 402 and 406.\nWhen the principal is not disclosed either principal or agent may sue upon a contract not under seal. Saladin v. Mitchell 45 Ill. 79.\nAside from this we think the proper construction of the contract is that appellee is principal therein.\nThe statement that the corn was for Day & Hubbard or for Merlcle may be properly regarded as indicating he expected to dispose of the corn to one or the other of the parties named, either by absolute sale or under contract afterward to be made for such party.\nThe more serious question is whether both appellants are liable.\nWe find evidence in the record tending to show that though the name of but one appellant appeared to the contract both were jointly interested as owners of the broom corn intended to be disposed -of by it, that both acted jointly in delivering so much of the corn as was delivered, and that the acts of both were in other respects indicative of a joint acceptance of the benefits of the contract, and also evidence which tended to show both acted together in secreting and refusing to deliver a portion of the broom corn.\nHpon all these points the testimony was not free from serious conflict, but after carefully consulting the whole testimony .we are constrained to accept the verdict of the jury as being the better guide for our action.\nThe contract in that view of the weight of the testimony was properly regarded as that of both appellees, entered into in the name of M. Stockbarger.\nThe' breach consisted of refusal and failure to deliver the \u201centire crop.\u201d\nAs to that, as before remarked, in view of all the testimony, we ought to regard, the jury as the better judges of the weight of testimony.\nThe sufficiency of 'the declaration was questioned by demurrer, the ground thereof being it appeared from the allegations plaintiff was merely an agent and that the right of action was in the principal.\nThe declaration alleges appellee entered into the contract as principal.\nThe contract is set out in the declaration in Ima verba, and the argument in favor of the position the demurrer was well taken rests upon the construction given it by counsel for appellant.\nAs we are unable to agree such construction is correct, it folio tvs we do not think the court erred in overruling the demurrer.\nThe abstract does not contain the instructions, nor are the objections to them pointed out in the briefs, and are deemed waived. E. St. L. Electric R. R. v. Stout 43 Ill. App. 546.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Boggs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. 1ST. Brewer and P. A. Brady, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Scranton & Scranton, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael Stockbarger and Charles H. Stockbarger v. I. W. Sain.\n1. Parties\u2014Who May Sue When Principal is Not Disclosed.\u2014 When the principal is not disclosed, either principal or agent may sue upon a contract not under seal.\n2. Appellate Court Praotioe\u2014 When Errors Will he Deemed Waived.\u2014 Where the abstract does not contain instructions complained of as error, and the objections to them are not pointed out in the briefs, the alleged errors will be deemed waived.\nAssumpsit, for breach of a contract of sale. Appeal from the County Court of Cumberland County; the Hon. Gesham Monohon, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the November term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 25, 1897.\nL. 1ST. Brewer and P. A. Brady, attorneys for appellants.\nScranton & Scranton, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0436-01",
  "first_page_order": 434,
  "last_page_order": 436
}
