Case Name: Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Becherer
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1886-11-24
Citations: 20 Ill. App. 671
Docket Number: No. 13
Parties: Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Becherer.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 671–671

Head Matter:
No. 13.
Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Becherer.
On September 1, 1882, the appellees bought a twine-binder reaper from one Hartman, appellant’s agent at Belleville, in St. Clair county, and gave their note for the amount of §140, due in one year, with seven per cent, interest for the purchase money unpaid at time of the sale. This note was guaranteed by-Hartman, April 28, 1883; the appellees paid to Hartman §141.25 on the note ánd took his receipt. This money he never paid to the appellant, and when the note matured it brought this suit and was defeated in the court below and then appealed to this court. The evidence introduced upon the trial, showing the course of the dealings between appellant and its agent, Hartman, relating to the collection of notes taken by him, the court regards as sufficient to justify the finding of the jury, that he was authorized to receive the money upon the note in suit. It also sufficiently appears from the evidence that in this particular instance, the appellant ratified the act of Hartman in receiving the money before it was due. The judgment, however, is reversed for an error appearing in the record. The amount paid to Hartman was §141.25, and was received by him as shown by his receipt on the note and interest. At this time the note, with the interest accrued, amounted to more than §146. The appellants were entitled to recover the difference between the sum paid and the amount due upon the note according to its terms. The record is barren of any evidence that Hartman was. authorized to receive less than the amount due upon any note in full payment of it, or that the appellant was ever informed that, in this instance, he had done so and approved his action.
Opinion filed Nov. 24, 1886.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Pillsbury, J.
Judge below, Amos Watts. Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Dill & Schaefer ; for appellees, Mr. Henry Challenor.