Case Name: James E. Hills, Appellant, v. Joseph Hopp, Appellee
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1916-10-30
Citations: 201 Ill. App. 554
Docket Number: Gen. No. 22,314
Parties: James E. Hills, Appellant, v. Joseph Hopp, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 201
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
James E. Hills, Appellant, v. Joseph Hopp, Appellee.
Gen. No. 22,314.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Evidence—when exclusion of parol evidence contradicting memorandum erroneous. In an action to recover for breach of a parol contract to repurchase stock assigned by defendant to plaintiff, it appeared that plaintiff received a certain certificate, assigned in blank, and surrendered it for cancellation, receiving a new cer tificate, and that defendant, who was president of the' corporation issuing the stock, made on the face of the canceled certificate a memorandum, which was never delivered to or seen by plaintiff, to the effect that a new certificate had been delivered to plaintiff in lieu of that which was canceled. Parol evidence of the contract sued on was excluded, on the ground that it contradicted a written instrument, the memorandum being the instrument referred to. Held, that the exclusion was erroneous, the memorandum not being a contract between the parties, for which reason the rule invoked did not apply.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles N. Goodnow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed October 30, 1916.
Rehearing denied November 13, 1916.
Statement of the Case.
Action by James B. Hills, plaintiff, against Joseph Hopp, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover on an alleged verbal agreement to repurchase stock sold to plaintiff. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Frederick A. Bangs, for appellant; Richard H. Colby, of counsel.
Burkhalter, Crossberg & Newfield, for appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Contracts, § 32*—when memoranda not binding as contract. Memoranda made by officials of a corporation for their own convenience- in keeping their records are not binding on strangers who are ignorant of the existence of such memoranda.
3. Appeal and error, § 365*—what points not reviewable. Points not made at the trial cannot be made for the first time on review.