Case ID: ill-app_202/html/0527-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Graves", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James W. Gullett, Appellee, v. George W. Leaverton and Grace Leaverton, Appellants.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 13, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by James W. Gullett, plaintiff, against George W. Leaverton and Grace Leaverton, defendants, for fraud and deceit. From a judgment for plaintiff for four hundred dollars, defendants appeal.
    The sufficiency of the declaration in this case was determined on a former appeal, reported in 188 Ill. App. 66.
    Smith & Friedmeyer, for appellants.
    Noah Gullett and Gillespie & Fitzgerald, for ap- • pellee.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Principal and agent, § 155
      
      —when principal is hound hy misrepresentations of agent. Misrepresentations of an agent made when he is acting within the scope of his authority, or when the principal has knowledge of the deceit, will bind the principal.
    2. Husband and wife, § 143*—when wife is hound hy fraud of husband. Where, in an action for fraud and deceit for the sale of a lot, against a man and his wife, it was shown that the husband was the agent of the wife, that the representations were false, that the husband knew them to be false, that they were material transactions and were made with the intent to deceive, that the plaintiff to whom they were made 'relied upon them, and was induced to act by reason thereof, and was misled and damaged thereby, held that the evidence was sufficient to justify a judgment against the wife as well as against the husband, it tending to show that she knew of the representations, since the husband testified 'as to conversations with her about the sale and that the representations were contained in an advertisement of the lot for sale, and the wife did not deny either the making of them or their falsity.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vola, XI to' XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.