Case ID: ill-app_17/html/0660-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SECOND DISTRICT.
    No. 1389.
    John H. Conlon v. Eliphalet W. Blatchford et al.
    Opinion filed Dec. 4, 1885.
    This was an action brought by appellees below to recover on a promissory note given for flax seed. One Dement had sold the seed to appellants in the spring, taking a note payable to appellees for the value thereof, said note containing a further agreement to sow the seed on suitable ground, harvest the same and sell it to appellees at twenty cents less than market rates, etc. Dement at the same time took an agreement signed by appellants and himself, to the effect that he, Dement) would furnish a certain kind of machine for threshing said crop at fifteen cents per bushel, and would take all their straw at nine and six dollars per ton according to quality. Dement failed to furnish any machine for threshing, and the result was the seed was very poor by reason of not being threshed in time, and much was wasted, besides the straw being a total Joss. The appellant defended against the note by endeavoring to hold appellees bound by the contract of Dement and offset damages by reason of Dement’s failure to fulfill his contract relative to threshing, etc. The court below treated the two contracts as not being one and the same, and held that the. appellees were not bound by the Dement contract, as from the papers themselves it appeared that Dement was agent .for appellees in the matter of selling the seed, and acted for himself alone in the contract as to the threshing and the straw. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
    Attorneys for appellant, Messrs. C. J. & O. 0. Johnson;
    for appellees, Mr. "W. Stager.
   Opinion by Lacey, P. J. Judge below, J. 1VI. Bailey.