{ "id": 5252373, "name": "Albert Pick & Company v. Edward Slimmer", "name_abbreviation": "Albert Pick & Co. v. Slimmer", "decision_date": "1897-06-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "358", "last_page": "363", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "70 Ill. App. 358" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "69 Md. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1044944 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/md/69/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Cal. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 4380433 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/cal/74/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S. W. Rep. 781", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "79 Wis. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8705147 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/79/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 Ala. 238", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3390686 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/86/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Hun, 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hun,", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "53 Ark. 155", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1911607 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/53/0155-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Va. 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 4371706 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/va/83/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Minn. 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 549653 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/23/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Minn. 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 546434 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/16/0091-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 N. Y. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2021200 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/18/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Wall. 129", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 3436323 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/77/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Wheat. 237", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wheat.", "case_ids": [ 1428681 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/24/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Minn. 301", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 768953 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/28/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Pac. Rep. 504", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "103 Cal. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2341387 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/cal/103/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Colo. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Colo.", "case_ids": [ 2578173 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/colo/8/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ill. App. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4871312 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/13/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Ill. App. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 854331 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/16/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Neb. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 8519348 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/neb/19/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 N. Y. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2214376 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/108/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 N. J. L. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 351444 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/njl/39/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ind. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1400097 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/39/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5234724 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/59/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Colo. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Colo.", "case_ids": [ 2578173 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/colo/8/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ill. App. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4871312 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/13/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Neb. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 8519348 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/19/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 N. J. L. 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 351444 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/njl/39/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ill. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5234724 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/59/0079-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 545, "char_count": 8808, "ocr_confidence": 0.508, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.66665337101463e-08, "percentile": 0.40600146958374794 }, "sha256": "237b5b28143bf5ff18d86ad064235e421c6dc9c785d683e894d3f201eff30e2f", "simhash": "1:a308d54a00f5df8a", "word_count": 1510 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Albert Pick & Company v. Edward Slimmer." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit upon an alleged account stated made in settlement of services rendered by appellee to appellant.\nThe statement was in writing, and was prepared by the secretary of appellant and given to appellee. It is as follows:\n\u201c Albert Pick, Pres. Abe Bloch, Sec\u2019y & Treas.\nSTATEMENT.\nChicago, May 1, 1896.\nM Ed. Slimmer, (\nIn account with Albert Pick & Co., successors to Pick Bloch & Joel, Importers, Jobbers and Dealers and Complete Outfitters of Bars,\nHotels and Restaurants.\n199, 201 & 203 Randolph St.\nTelephone, Main 1885.\n' Cr.....................................$3,000.\nDr.\nDrawings. ............. $1,300.00\nA. Lipman........____.... 63.75\n$1,363.75 By balance due... ...$1,636.25 May 8 th\u2014By cash........... 1896. Payable as follows: May 13................$200.00 ... 300.00 \u25a0 $1,336.25 June 8............... Rec. $200 May 19, \u201996. July 8.............. 378.75 Rec. 100 July 6, \u201996. Aug. 8................ .. 378.75 $1,336.25 Rec. 200 Aug. 18. \u201996.\nAppellee testified that it was given upon a settlement of accounts, and that the president of appellant promised to pay the balance therefrom appearing to be due to appellee, the payments to be made by installments of the amounts, and at the times indicated upon the statement. In this appellee was corroborated by a Mr. Loser.\nAppellant denied that the \u201cstatement\u201d was anything more than a transcript from the ledger, and insisted that appellee should be charged with certain goods sold by him which had not been paid for, and also with certain goods charged to him upon the order of a third party.\nAppellant sought to introduce evidence concerning what was said when appellee was hired as to uncollectible accounts for goods he might sell.\nUpon the trial appellant desired to show the conversation bad with appellee when the statement was made, that appellant had claims against appellee growing out of his contract of employment by it; also, what the terms of the contract under which appellee was hired were.\nThe president of appellant corporation testified that it had claims against appellee for goods sold and delivered, and also what such claims are. That these claims arose subsequent to the making of the statement did not appear; and appellant also wished to introduce evidence showing the terms under which appellee entered its service.\nSuch evidence was properly rejected. \u2018\nAppellee\u2019s suit ivas upon an account stated, and upon nothing else. If there were no stating of an account, then appellee had no case.\nWhat the terms of the hiring of appellee were, and what claims appellant had against him when the alleged statement was made, was immaterial.\nIf there were a statement and if appellee had produced it in evidence, it could be attacked only for fraud or mistake.\nThere was no attempt to show either fraud or mistake in the making of the alleged stated account.\nAn account stated is not conclusive upon the parties; it does afford a prima faoie case. Gruby v. Smith, 13 Ill. App. 43; McKinster v. Hitchcock, 19 Neb. 100; St. Louis Co. v. Bank, 8 Colo. 70; Vandemeer v. Statesir, 39 N. J. Law, 593; Clarke v. Marbourg, 33 Kansas, 471.\nThe court held all the propositions of law submitted by appellant, except the following;\nThat the declarations and statements alleged to have been rendered by various officers of the corporation to the plaintiff in this case would not constitute an account stated as between the plaintiff and the defendant corporation.\u201d\nIn refusing to hold this there was no error; it was not a proposition of law, but of fact.\nThe court found the issues for the plaintiff, and assessed the plaintiff\u2019s damages at the sum of eight hundred and thirty-six dollars and twenty-five cents.\nThe court thus, upon conflicting testimony, found that there was an account stated, as testified by appellee.\nThat when the account was stated the hiring and service of appellee had come to an end is undisputed. The case is, therefore, not like that of Phelps v. Hubbard, 59 Ill. 79, in which there had been only a partial performance.\nThe president and secretary of appellant are presumed to have had authority to make and render the statement in question.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stein & Platt, attorneys for appellant.", "Ringer, Wilhaetz & Lowenhaupt, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Albert Pick & Company v. Edward Slimmer.\n1. Account Stated\u2014 Not Conclusive.\u2014An account stated is not conclusive upon the parties but simply affords & prima facie case.\n2. Same\u2014Power of a Corporation to Malee.\u2014The president and secretary of a corporation are presumed to have authority to make and render a statement of account.\n3. Propositions op Law\u2014Must Not be Propositions of Fact.\u2014It is not error to refuse to hold, as a proposed proposition of law, what is in reality a proposition of fact.\nAssumpsit, on an account stated. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 14, 1897.\nStein & Platt, attorneys for appellant.\nRendering the account in question while certain requirements of plaintiff\u2019s contract were unfulfilled would not constitute such an account stated as to afford ground for maintaining the suit in disregard of such requirements. Phelps v. Hubbard, 59 Ill. 79.\nEven if the statement constituted an \u201c account stated,\u201d such account would not be conclusive upon the plaintiff, but errors might be shown and corrected under the plea of general issue. 2 Greenleaf on Evidence (15th Ed.), Sec. 128; Thomas v. Hawks, 8 M.. & W. 140; Bouslog v. Garrett 39 Ind. 338; Vanderveer v. Statesir, 39 N. J. L. 593; Field v. Knapp, 108 N. Y. 87.\nAnd it is not necessary that this should be done by admitting the account stated and formally \u201c surcharging \u201d or falsifying.\u201d The correctness of the items may be disputed under the general issue. McKinster v. Hitchcock, 19 Neb. 100; Hodge v. Boynton, 16 Ill. App. 524.\nAn account stated is not conclusive upon the parties but simply affords a prima facie case. The burden of proof is shifted but the correctness of items may still be attacked. Gruby v. Smith, 13 Ill. App. 43; McKinster v. Hitchcock, 19 Neb. 100; St. Louis Co. v. Bank, 8 Colo. 70.\nEven when the circumstances are such that it would be improper to inquire into the items if the settlement of the account were admitted, yet it is proper to inquire as to the correctness of such items with a view to determining the probability of the respective claims where the rendering of the statement is disputed. Coffee v. Williams, 103 Cal. 550; S. C., 37 Pac. Rep. 504; Field v. Knapp, 108 N. Y. 87.\nRinger, Wilhaetz & Lowenhaupt, attorneys for appellee.\nAn account stated is conclusive, and courts will not permit an inquiry into the origin thereof where some act has been done or forborne in consequence of the accounting, and relying upon it, which would put the party claiming the benefit of it in a worse position than as though it had not been had. Wharton v. Anderson, 28 Minn. 301.\n\u2022 There is some confusion in the books as to the precise effect of a stated account upon the rights of the parties, but we are inclined to the opinion that it is only prima facie evidence of the correctness of the balance, and not conclusive upon it, unless in arriving at the agreed balance there has been some concession made upon items disputed between the parties, so that the balance is. the result of a compromise, or some act has been done or forborne in consequence of the accounting, and relying upon it, which would put the party claiming the benefit of it in a worse position than as though it had not been had, so as to bring the case within the principles of an estoppel in pais. A stated account, not affected by such new consideration or estoppel, may be impeached for mistake or error in law or in fact, with respect to the items included in it, or for omission of items. Perkins v. Hart, 11 Wheat. 237; Hardin v. Gordon, 2 Mason, 562; Thomas v. Hawks, 8 Mees. & W. 140; Wiggins v. Burkham, 10 Wall. 129; Lockwood v. Thorne, 18 N. Y. 285; 1 Story Eq. Jur. 524; 2 Chitty on Contracts, 962; Warner v. Myrick, 16 Minn. 91; Wharton v. Anderson, 23 Minn. 301.\nWhere parties have settled and stated their acoounts with one another, each is bound thereby, unless he can furnish clear proof of fraud or mistake. Neff v. Wooding, 83 Va. 432; Weed v. Dyer, 53 Ark. 155; Frankel v. Wathen, 58 Hun, 543; Ware v. Manning, 86 Ala. 238; Powell v. Heisler, 16 Oreg. 412; Hawley v. Harran, 79 Wis. 379; Moscowitz v. Lemp, Ar. 12 S. W. Rep. 781.\nIn action on a stated account, it is not necessary to prove the items of the original account, nor can they be inquired into or surcharged, except for some fraud, error or mistake, which must be set forth in the pleadings. Auzerais v. Naglee, 74 Cal. 60; Devecmon v. Shaw. 69 Md. 199." }, "file_name": "0358-01", "first_page_order": 358, "last_page_order": 363 }