Court Opinion

ID: 9518257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:48:24.972293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:00.792335
License: Public Domain

BURKE, P. J., dissenting: The defendant does not deny that the merchandise was furnished to him. He denies that it was furnished to him at his special instance and request. His affidavit states that he “does not operate or own the business known as Danno’s Food City.” This allegation is unresponsive and evasive because it is limited to the present tense. The relevant date of defendant’s operation or ownership is not as of January 4, 1960, after the instant suit was filed, but as of the period from June to August 1959, when the groceries were ordered and delivered. It is significant that defendant’s affidavit does not allege that he did not own or operate the store as of the period the groceries were ordered and delivered. Defendant’s affidavit does not deny the ordering by or delivery to defendant but seeks to evade by saying that “this defendant did not order merchandise and groceries from the plaintiff as shown in statement of plaintiff attached on this defendant’s behalf, and denies that he accepted deliveries thereon on his behalf.” (Italics ours.) Defendant’s affidavit states that he “has not paid any monies to plaintiff for his own account” and that any monies paid were paid at the request for and on behalf of the owner of the store at the request of the owner. Defendant indulges in the evasive negative pregnant and unsupported conclusions. He does not deny that he issued his personal checks and made the payments but denies that they were made for his own account. There is no denial of the issuance of the checks by the defendant in his individual name. Defendant’s affidavit admits that he individually signed the membership agreement with plaintiff and the three checks to plaintiff in payment on account of the furnished groceries. His allegations that his signatures on the membership agreement and on the checks were not intended to bind him but to bind an undisclosed principal could not create a genuine issue as to material fact. The Parol Evidence Rule bars defendant’s theory of the case. This rule prohibits the reception of parol evidence to modify or vary the terms of a writing, and under this rule defendant would be precluded from attempting to prove that the writing creating and evidencing an obligation on him individually was intended to create and evidence an obligation on some third party not disclosed in the writing. Since such evidence would be inadmissible in the trial, the allegations present no bar to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See Hypes v. Griffin, 89 Ill. 134; P. & O. Banking Corporation v. Wurm Brothers Co., 282 Ill. App. 560, 564. Defendant’s allegations are so nonresponsive, evasive and conclusory that they should be disregarded. They violate the letter and spirit of Supreme Court Buie 15(1) that the allegations “shall not consist of conclusions but of facts admissible in evidence.” There is no genuine issue of fact. Therefore the judgment should be affirmed.