Case ID: ill-app_211/html/0581-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Thomson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walter J. Ellis, Appellee, v. Hillison & Etten Company, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,881.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Dennis W. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed July 10, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Walter J. Ellis, plaintiff, against Hillison & Etten Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover on a contract. From a judgment for plaintiff for $106, defendant appeals.
    William A. Barnes, for appellant.
    No appearance for appellee.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Sales — when binding sale is made by counter offer and compliance with terms of latter. Where one to whom a process is offered for sale makes a counter offer to purchase it at a certain sum if a demonstration is made at a certain time and the process is as claimed by the original offerer, the counter offer' ripens into a binding obligation when the original offerer makes the demonstration and the process proves to be as claimed.
    2. Sales, § 329
      
       — when satisfactory demonstration of process by seller is shown. In an action to recover on a contract for the sale of a process in case the demonstration thereof is satisfactory, evidence held to support a finding that the seller had given a satisfactory demonstration of such process.
    3. Corporations, § 355* — when employee has authority to purchase process on behalf of corporation. Where it appears that one seeking to sell a process to a corporation spoke to the president in regard thereto and was told by him to see a certain employee about it, such employee is thereby clothed with authority to act on behalf of the corporation in regard to the transaction.
    4. Municipal Court oe Chicago, § 13* — when statement of claim in action to recover on contract of sale is sufficient. Under section 40 of the Municipal Court Act (J. & A. If 3352), in an action to recover on a contract by which defendant agreed to purchase a certain process if a satisfactory demonstration of it was given, a statement of claim which sets forth a copy of the contract and a statement to the effect that after the contract was signed plaintiff demonstrated the method and was told by defendant that it was satisfactory, is sufficient, even though it lacks the particularity of a common-law pleading.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, samo topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.