{
  "id": 2612539,
  "name": "August Koch v. Jacob Willi",
  "name_abbreviation": "Koch v. Willi",
  "decision_date": "1872-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "144",
  "last_page": "146",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ill. 144"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2226,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.136906572652568e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9110062015198569
    },
    "sha256": "a05212456b464643b78ec6157a0c8a416cab0de1c08928f62fa9503ecf206db5",
    "simhash": "1:4baf21d07f837038",
    "word_count": 383
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:30:19.405961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "August Koch v. Jacob Willi."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thornton\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nWe are asked to reverse the judgment in this case upon the evidence.\nAppellant employed, as his agent, one Friday; entrusted him with money, and authorized him to purchase corn in the country for shipment to St. Louis.\nFriday bought corn, sold some of it, and shipped some to his principal. Amongst others, he purchased from appellee. The purchases were made in the name of the agent, and the relation between appellant and Friday was never disclosed to appellee.\nThe corn was in the possession and under the control of the agent, and appellee, not having been paid, bought the corn in controversy of the agent, in satisfaction of his debt, on the 24th of October, and put a lock upon the stable.\nOn the 25th of October, attachments were levied upon the corn, and they were satisfied by appellant, but no public sale was made.\nThe corn remained in the same condition until some time in December following, when appellee hauled it away, and this action of trover was brought for the recovery of its value.\nWe are not willing to disturb the judgment. It is a fair presumption that appellee purchased in good faith to secure his debt, and with the honest belief that Friday had the right to sell. He took such possession as the circumstances justified, and he had no knowledge of the alleged ownership of appellant, nor any notice of the attachments. He was fully warranted in the purchase from the agent, and' appellant is estopped from a denial of the right to sell.\nThere was no change of possession, and no sale by virtue of the attachments, and therefore the purchase by appellee was not affected by them.\nThe judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed:",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thornton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. David Gillespie, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Dale & Burnett, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "August Koch v. Jacob Willi.\n1. Principal and agent\u2014in transaction with third parties. If an agent sell and deliver personal property in payment of debts contracted by himself, in his own name, to a third party, without disclosing his agency, the right of the purchaser can not be disturbed by the principal or his attaching creditors.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. Joseph Gillespie, Judge, presiding.\nMr. David Gillespie, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Dale & Burnett, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0144-01",
  "first_page_order": 146,
  "last_page_order": 148
}