Case Name: Edward McCormick, Appellee, v. Agnes Downs and M. E. Fleming, Appellants
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1914-04-15
Citations: 186 Ill. App. 326
Docket Number: Gen. No. 5,839
Parties: Edward McCormick, Appellee, v. Agnes Downs and M. E. Fleming, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 186
Pages: 326–327

Head Matter:
Edward McCormick, Appellee, v. Agnes Downs and M. E. Fleming, Appellants.
Gen. No. 5,839.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. Richard S. Farrand, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed April 15, 1914.
Statement of tlie Case.
Action by Edward McCormick against Agnes Downs and M. E. Fleming to recover the.price of a colt alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to Agnes Downs. Suit was originally commenced before a justice of the peace where plaintiff had judgment for ninety-five dollars. On appeal to the Circuit Court plaintiff recovered a like judgment. From the judgment of the Circuit Court, defendants appeal.
Brooks & Brooks, for appellants.
Harry Edwards, for appellee.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Sales, § 18 —when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that seller assented to terms of sale. In an action for the price of a colt, where the purchaser claimed that she never bought the colt, and that plaintiff did not assent to her proposition to wait until corn shelling time for his pay, a verdict for plaintiff held sustained by the evidence.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, san>e jtcpjc and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Dibell
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Fbauds, statute of, § 16 —when oral promise to pay for goods sold to another is an original promise. Where a person sent word to another that a colt which the latter had traded for with a third person belonged to him and for him to sell it back to such third person and he would see that the colt was paid for, and a sale was made to such third party in reliance on the promise, held that the promise thus made was an original promise not within the statute of frauds, and that the maker of the promise was liable with the purchaser for the price of the colt.