Bird v. Forceman

Citations

• 62 Ill. 212

Syllabus

<p>1. Contract—representations inducing sale. Where a party purchasing hogs for the market not being aware of the fact that the prices had’ advanced in Chicago, but relying upon a newspaper report, represented that hogs were on the decline in the market at Chicago, and, in fact communicated all the information within his knowledge on the subject, and thereby induced the owner of a lot of hogs to agree to sell and deliver them at a certain price per pound: JHeld, that the seller could not refuse to deliver, on the ground that the prices had advanced instead of declining.</p> <p>2. Instruction—assuming the existence of a contract. In a suit to recover damages for the non-delivery of hogs under an alleged contract, the court instructed the jury as follows: “It is incumbent on the defendants, under the contract alleged in plaintiff’s declaration, to show an offer to perform, or some excuse for non-performance on their part, in order to excuse themselves from liability to pay damages, if the evidence shows that plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract: ” Held, not liable to the objection that it assumed the existence of the contract, and when taken in connection with the others given could not mislead the jury.</p>