Case ID: ill-app_184/html/0035-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Clark", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edwin S. Popper and Emil L. Popper, Appellees, v. Frederick W. Spelz, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 18,817.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Guaranty, § 3
      
      —when letters “O. K.” are not. The letters “O. K.” written by an officer on an order given by the corporation do not of themselves constitute a contract of guaranty, and will be understood generally as meaning that the order had the approval of the officer whose name appears.
    
      Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Virgil W. Mills, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
    Reversed.
    Opinion filed December 2, 1913.
    Rehearing denied December 16, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Edwin S. Popper and Emil L. Popper, partners, trading as Leo Popper & Sons, against Frederick W. Spelz upon an alleged guaranty of payment of an order made by a corporation which the corporation had given the plaintiffs, the defendant being an officer of the corporation. From a judgment for plaintiffs for $221.58, defendant appeals.
    Edwin L. Waugh, for appellant.
    William J. Stapleton, for appellees.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. Xl to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Guaranty, § 3 —when officer of corporation not liable. An officer of a corporation refused to sign a form guarantying payment of the corporation’s order hut marked the order with the letters “O. K.,” and his clerk without authority wrote the seller in his name, the seller that the “O. K..” would have to suffice as a guaranty. The alleged guarantor testified the clerk had no authority to write such letter, that it was not written in accordance with the directions given and that he marked the order as an approval. Held, a guaranty was not established and a verdict should have been directed.

3. Guaranty, § 12 —scope of liability. The liability of a guarantor is limited to the express terms of his undertaking and cannot be extended by implication.