delivered the opinion of the court.
Orthwein Matchette Co. v. Barrell, 190 Ill. App. 11 (1914)
Nov. 30, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 20,282
190 Ill. App. 11
Orthwein Matchette Company, Defendant in Error, v. Finley Barrell et al., trading as Finley Barrell & Company, Plaintiffs in Error.
Gen. No. 20,282.
(Not to fee reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
Partnership, § 123 * —evidence sufficient to establish agreement with. In an action against a copartnership to.recover a sum alleged to be due under a contract whereby the defendants agreed to take care "of the business furnished" by a Board of Trade iñ a certain city with which plaintiff had a contract, "evidence held sufficient to warrant a finding by a jury that the defendants, through *12one of their members, assented to the contract with reference to the conditions of the arrangement made between plaintiff and said Board of Trade so that the defendants were bound thereby, it appearing that the member was present at the time the arrangement was orally made and that the plaintiff thereafter sent a memorandum of the agreement to him for his approval, and in answer thereto he wrote to plaintiff that to his mind it covered all the points of the agreement.
*11Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmiul, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed November 30, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Orthwein Matchette Company, a corporation, against Finley Barrell, Eugene B. Pike and William E. White, copartners, trading as Finley Barrell & Company, to recover a sum alleged to be due the plaintiff under a written contract, relating to an arrangement whereby the defendants agreed to install1 a private wire from the office of plaintiff in Kansas City to.its office in Wichita, and the plaintiff agreed to send the defendants all the grain business' it received from the Wichita Board of Trade except that to be executed at Kansas City. To reverse a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, defendants prosecute a writ of error.
Chester Arthur Legg, for plaintiffs in error. .
James M. Sheean and Martin H. Foss, for defendant in error.