{ "id": 5272567, "name": "William H. Heegaard v. S. F. Hess & Co.", "name_abbreviation": "Heegaard v. S. F. Hess & Co.", "decision_date": "1900-01-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "544", "last_page": "546", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "86 Ill. App. 544" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5100934 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/54/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 Ill. App. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5100934 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/54/0227-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 280, "char_count": 4012, "ocr_confidence": 0.538, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08, "percentile": 0.3929310164414991 }, "sha256": "263e53c3882429e0f437896722842ae442ba7c14f26144e6e65039cddefa3101", "simhash": "1:8395bef77ce9a818", "word_count": 707 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:28:30.258939+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "William H. Heegaard v. S. F. Hess & Co." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe opening words of the printed argument of counsel for appellant are that \u201cThis case is before this court on substantially the same evidence as was in the record in Hess & Co. v. Heegaard, 54 Ill. App. 227.\u201d It is also stated in said argument that \u201c The chief question involved is whether or not the appellee is bound by the contracts made by J. E. Avery.\u201d\nSaid contracts are the same ones that were before the court upon the former appeal in this case, cited above. It was there held that appellee is not bound by said contracts. We are not disposed to reconsider the questions there considered and decided.\nAppellant sought to show that \u201c it is the custom to deal with manufacturers\u2019- agents in Chicago precisely as if they were the principals.\u201d Such testimony was offered for the purpose of thus showing that said Avery was authorized as agent of appellee to execute the contract in question. There was no error in excluding such testimony. Even if it be held that the scope and extent of an agent\u2019s authority to bind his principal by special contract could be thus established (we do not wish to be understood as so holding) it appears that appellant did not rely upon such a custom.\nThe appellee\u2019s place of business was Rochester, N. Y. Appellant testified that he bad negotiations with said Avery in regard to a rebate, but the matter \u201crun along\u201d and no contract was made. Later appellant said to Mr. Avery that he could not order cigarettes from appellee unless he could get the rebate, but would do so if he could have a contract to that effect. Avery replied that he was going to Rochester. Appellant then said, \u201c If you find that you can make that agreement you can ship me the cigarettes.\u201d Upon the return of said Avery from Rochester he said to appellant that \u201c it was all right, and he would make a contract for the rebate,\u201d which was afterward done.\nClearly appellant was not relying upon any custom, but relied upon the statement of said Avery as to his (Avery\u2019s) authority.\nIn the judgment now appealed from is included interest. On behalf of appellant it is contended that as this suit is upon an open account it was error to allow interest.\nAt the head of each invoice sent by appellee to appellant was printed the words: \u201c Bills bear interest after maturity, and are subject to sight draft.\u201d Also the following: \u201c Terms 60 days, 2 per cent discount for cash within 10 days.\u201d The date of the last bill was August 26, 1890. Interest at the rate of 5 per cent was allowed to appellee from October 26, 1890.\nCounsel for appellant make no argument, cite no authorities, state no reason, why it was error to allow interest. They merely refer to the section of the statute relating to interest. We do not, therefore, feel called upon to enter into any discussion of the point thus stated, or to refer to authorities. The point is not well taken. It was not error to allow interest under the facts of this case.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Horton" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ashcraft & Gordon, attorneys for appellant; R. M. Ashcraft of counsel.", "Darrow, Thomas & Thompson, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William H. Heegaard v. S. F. Hess & Co.\n1. Interest\u2014On Invoices.\u2014At the head of each invoice of goods sent by the vendor to the vendee were printed the words: \u201c Bills bear interest after maturity, and are subject to sight draft.\u201d Also the following: \u201c Terms 60 days, 3 per cent discount for cash within 10 days.\u201d Held, not error to allow interest in this case from the date of the last invoice.\n2. Principal and Agwt\u2014Authority to Bind Not Enlarged, When.\u2014 The consideration or inducement which moves an agent to undertake to bind Ms principal does not enlarge the authority to bind. (Hess & Co. v. Heegaard, 54 Ill. App. 227.)\nAssumpsit, for goods sold. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1899.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 16, 1900.\nAshcraft & Gordon, attorneys for appellant; R. M. Ashcraft of counsel.\nDarrow, Thomas & Thompson, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0544-01", "first_page_order": 552, "last_page_order": 554 }