Court Opinion

ID: 6951215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 01:32:03.915298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:08:05.148039
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Beckwith delivered the opinion of the court: This is an action of assumpsit to recover the sum of money mentioned in a draft dated July 16, 1861, drawn by Green & Stone on the appellants, alleged to have been verbally accepted by them, but protested for non-acceptance. The defense was, that the promise of the appellants to accept did not constitute an acceptance; that such promise was obtained by fraud, and that its consideration had failed. On the trial the plaintiffs offered in evidence the draft and a written agreement of Green & Stone, dated August 1, 1861, by which they transferred to the appellants all their interest in certain property and claims for commissions, in consideration of the appellants undertaking to pay the draft in question. The plaintiffs also offered evidence tending to prove that the appellants promised Green & Stone that they would accept and pay the draft, and that the appellees, after they had taken it, were informed of this undertaking. A promise by the drawer to pay an existing bill, is an acceptance, or, in law, amounts to an acceptance, whether the bill was. taken upon the faith of the promise or not. A promise to any person interested in having a bill paid, inures to the benefit of the holder. These principles were settled in the time of Lord Ellenbobough, and a reference to any of the text books will furnish the names of a great number of cases in which they have been acted upon in England and in this country. They are too well settled to be discussed at the present day. The court below found there was no fraud in obtaining the promise, and we are entirely satisfied with its finding. The appellants’ agreement to accept the bill was for the benefit of its holders; and the agreement of Green and Jones that the net proceeds of the property and the commissions transferred to the appellants should amount to a certain sum, was solely for their benefit. The non-performance of the latter agreement furnishes no excuse for not accepting and paying the bill. The agreements were not intended to be dependent on each other. The undertaking on the part of the appellants was, that they would pay the bills when they became due. They were to convert the property transferred to them into money at the best price they could obtain for it, and ascertain the amount of the commissions; and if these sums did not amount to sufficient to pay the bills which they undertook to pay, Green and Jones undertook to pay them the difference. Such was the legal effect of their agreement. We do not deem it necessary to make a critical examination of the special pleas filed by the appellants. All the matters set up in them were admissible in evidence under the general issue and on the trial were given in evidence under it. The appellants have had all the benefit which they can derive from the facts; and if the demurrer to some of the pleas was improperly sustained, we should not reverse the judgment after the appellants have had the full benefit of their defense under the general issue. Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Wright, 22 Ill. 462. Perceiving no error in the record, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.