Coffman v. D. C. Campbell & Co.
Citations
- 87 Ill. 98
Syllabus
<p>1. Draft—acceptance, whether conditional. A telegram agreeing to accept a person’s draft for a certain sum, “ for stock,” is not a conditional contract, but an absolute undertaking to accept and pay the same; and a party discounting the draft, on the faith of such telegram, is entitled to recover the amount of the party so agreeing to accept.</p> <p>2. Same—condition as to acceptance must he clearly expressed. It is the duty of a party agreeing to accept a draft to be drawn on him to express clearly the condition of his acceptance, if he desires to make it conditional, and the burden is upon him to show it, and not upon the holder of the bill.</p> <p>3. In a telegram to a party, in relation to a draft, that the person sending the dispatch “ will pay A B’s draft, twenty-three hundred dollars, for stock,” the words, “ for stock,” subserves no purpose as between the payee and the acceptor. At most, those words are but an indication of the nature of the consideration as between the drawer and the acceptor.</p> <p>4. Usage—requisites. An usage of trade must be generally known and established, and so well settled and so uniformly acted upon as to raise a fair presumption that it was known to both contracting parties, and that they contracted in reference to it and in conformity to it. Proof of a particular usage among commission merchants, in Chicago, in respect to the acceptance of drafts, not extending to bankers, nor to a foreign State where a draft is negotiated, fails to establish any binding usage.</p>
Judges: Breese
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.