Schultz v. Deeming

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 13*—when statement of claim contradictory. An averment in a statement of claim that goods were sold to defendant at his request, coupled with a subsequent averment that the goods were delivered to a third person by direction of defendant, and that defendant guarantied payment for the goods, is contradictory, as setting up both a contract of sale and a contract of guaranty.</p> <p>2. Guaranty, § 1*—how term defined. A guaranty is a promise to answer for the payment of a debt, or the performance of a duty, by another, who is himself, in the first instance, liable for such payment or performance.</p> <p>3. Guaranty, § 34*—when evidence insufficient to establish. In an action to recover for goods supplied to a third person, under an agreement which the statement of claim describes both as a sale and as a guaranty that such third person would pay for the goods, evidence held to show a sale to defendant, and not a guaranty.</p> <p>4. Saxes, § 329*—when evidence sufficient to show. In an action to recover for goods supplied to a third person by direction of defendant, which contract defendant denied that he made, held that a finding for plaintiff was properly made on the evidence.</p>