Ellington v. King

Citations

• 49 Ill. 449

Syllabus

<p>1. Agency—extent of agent's authority. K exchanged a horse for a mare belonging to E, through A, acting as E’s agent. The mare proved unsound, whereupon K took her to A and requested him to return the horse. A replied that E had the horse, and that K must go to him. This K failed to do, and never at any time offered to E to return the mare, or demanded his horse, .and afterwards brought replevin against E. Upon the trial, the court, in one of its instructions to the jury, assumed that the agency of A continued afta- the trade, so as to authorize him to rescind the contract: Held, that this was erroneous; that the mere fact that E authorized A to sell his mare did not empower him to rescind the contract at a subsequent time, and after E had received the horse.</p> <p>2. Sales—fraud—rescission of contract. And in such ease, if E obtained the horse by fraud, K would have the right to rescind the contract, but he could only do so by offering to return the mare and demanding his horse in return. Buchanan v. Horney, 12 Ill. 338.</p>