Case Name: Imperial Steel Cabinet Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edgar M. Snow and Robert C. Butzow, Trading as Edgar M. Snow & Company, Defendants in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1913-01-23
Citations: 176 Ill. App. 633
Docket Number: Gen. No. 17,756
Parties: Imperial Steel Cabinet Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edgar M. Snow and Robert C. Butzow, Trading as Edgar M. Snow & Company, Defendants in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 176
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
Imperial Steel Cabinet Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edgar M. Snow and Robert C. Butzow, Trading as Edgar M. Snow & Company, Defendants in Error.
Gen. No. 17,756.
Action in assumpsit for goods sold, finding affirmed without de- ■ tailing evidence.
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Isidoee H. Himes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed January 23, 1913.
Michael Koch, for plaintiff in error.
Kraus, Alschuler & Holden, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McSurely
delivered the opinion of the court.
Defendants in error, Snow & Co., hereinafter called defendant, purchased some vault cases and paid the agreed price to one Julin; plaintiff in error, the Imperial Steel Cabinet Co., claims that the defendant should have paid it instead of Julin, and it brought suit against the defendant for the price of the case. Upon the trial the court held that plaintiff was not entitled to collect anything from the defendant, and in this court it is urged that this finding is wrong.
We shall not undertake to narrate any of the testimony presented at the trial. To do so would unduly extend this opinion and give the parties in the ease no more information as to the facts than they now have. It is sufficient to say that after careful consideration we are of the opinion that the trial court was justified in concluding that Julin was not an agent for plaintiff but was an independent contractor; that defendant's agreement for the purchase of the cases was with Julin and not with plaintiff, and that the payment made by defendant was made to the party entitled to receive it, and therefore defendant owes plaintiff nothing on account of this transaction.
We have examined the errors alleged to have been committed by the court, and are of the opinion that nothing requiring that this ease should be reversed appeared in the record. Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.