Hoyt v. Schillo Motor Sales Co., 185 Ill. App. 628 (1914)

April 1, 1914 · Illinois Appellate Court · Gen. No. 18,721
185 Ill. App. 628
N. Landon Hoyt, Defendant in Error, v. Schillo Motor Sales Company, E. W. Schillo and A. G. Schillo, Plaintiffs in Error

N. Landon Hoyt, Defendant in Error, v. Schillo Motor Sales Company, E. W. Schillo and A. G. Schillo, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 18,721.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Perry L. Persons, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 1, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by N. Landon Hoyt against E. W. Schillo and A. G-. Schillo, copartners doing business as Schillo Motor Sales Company, to recover damages for failure of defendants to comply with the terms of a contract for the exchange and sale of two automobiles. To reverse a judgment in favor of plaintiff for six hundred dollars, defendants bring error.

Rice & O’Neil, for plaintiffs in error.

Wabben Pease, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

*629Abstract of the Decision.

1. Automobiles and garages, § 4*—when automobile firm liable on unsigned contract for sale and exchange of machines. A person desirous of trading his automobile for another negotiated with an automobile firm and a written proposal was submitted to him in which he was to be allowed a certain amount for his machine. Such party on inspection of the papers made some changes and interlineations as to matters of minor consequence and the proposal was signed by him and by a salesman in the trade name of the firm with the understanding that because of the changes and interlineations the papers should be rewritten and returned to the purchaser for signature. The corrected copy was never delivered and the members of the firm refused to comply with the agreement claiming they were not hound by the signature of the salesman. Held that the members of the firm were hound by the proposal though they had not affixed their signature thereto, it appearing that they affrmatively expressed their assent thereto and had acted thereon in negotiating with a customer for the sale of the contemplated purchaser’s machine.

2. Contracts, § 53*—when party not signing is bound. A contract signed by only one of the parties is mutual and binding on both, if the other party, upon its delivery to him, assents to its terms and holds and acts upon it as a valid agreement. *