History
  • No items yet
midpage
Blank v. Dreher
25 Ill. 331
Ill.
1861
Check Treatment
Breese, J.

Whether an undertaking is original or collateral merely, is to be determined, not from the particular words used, but from all the circumstances attending the transaction. Both the terms of this contract, and the circumstances of the transaction, show to our minds quite conclusively, that Blank’s undertaking was collateral only.

The proof shows the brick were bought by Blank for one Cunningham, of Salem, Marion county, and so known to the sellers, Blank saying that he “ would be good for them, if Cunningham did not pay in thirty days.” The brick were forwarded to Cunningham and received by him.

This was clearly a collateral undertaking by Blank, and to bind him, should have been in writing. Cunningham was liable the moment the brick were delivered to him in Salem. The judgment is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Case Details

Case Name: Blank v. Dreher
Court Name: Illinois Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 15, 1861
Citation: 25 Ill. 331
Court Abbreviation: Ill.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.