Case ID: ill-app_203/html/0086-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Boggs", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Morris Sternberger, trading as Empire Furniture Company, Appellee, v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association, Appellant.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and error, § 1411
      
      —when finding of jury "based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed. The finding of the jury upon a disputed question of fact when amply supported by the evidence will not be disturbed.
    
      Appeal from the City Court of Bast St. Louis; the Hon. Robert H. FLAisrmGAN, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed November 13, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Morris Sternberger, trading as Empire Furniture Company, plaintiff, against Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association, a corporation, defendant, to recover for certain saloon furnishings that plaintiff claimed to have sold to defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Dan McG-ltnn, for appellant.
    Keefe & Sullivan, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, samo topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same $opic anfl. section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Corporations, § 355 —when evidence sufficient to show authority of agent to make contract. Where the evidence tended to show that the manager of a beer company’s office had authority to lease and rent out saloons, sell beer and collect money, and was a salesman and general man of said company, and claimed to have authority to buy certain saloon furnishings, and said company’s vice president said the matter should be settled with said manager as local agent, held that the jury were warranted in finding said manager had authority to enter into a contract for the purchase of such furnishings.

3. Corporations, § 355 —when evidence is sufficient to show agency of local manager of corporation to transact business. Evidence held to show that the defendant beer company had in making a certain person manager of its local office in East St. Louis clothed him with apparent authority to transact all business of the character said company was transacting in that city, including the purchase of certain saloon furnishings.

4. Corporations, § 355 —when bound by acts of agent. A corporation is bound by the acts of its agent when it clothes such agent with apparent authority to transact certain business, even if, as a matter of fact, it has not so authorized him.