Blank v. Dreher

Decided January 15, 1861

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1861-01-15

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by appellees against appellant. The first count of declaration is for twenty-eight thousand brick purchased by Blank from appellees at $5.75 per thousand, to be delivered at the depot of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company in Summerfield, and alleges that said brick were there delivered accordingly. Second count is in the usual form, for twenty-eight thousand brick, sold and delivered by appellees to appellant, at his request.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1918

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Breese, J.

¶1Whether 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.

¶2The 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.

¶3This 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.

¶4Judgment reversed.