Webster v. Vogel

Citations

• 62 Ill. 184

Syllabus

<p>1’. Release of damages—not implied by new contract with another person. The defendant, by a verbal contract, chartered a vessel to plaintiffs for the season, guaranteeing that her hoiler was in good condition, and delivered possession. On inspection the boiler was found to be in an unsound condition and needing extensive repairs. Defendant’s agent directed plaintiff to make the necessary repairs, telling-them it would be all right. After the repair's were made, involving a considerable expense and damage for wages paid employés who were idle during the repairing, the plaintiffs applied for a written charter-party, and were informed by defendant that he was not the owner of the vessel. While the repairs were being made defendant chartered the vessel for the season to a railroad company. The owner refused to charter her to plaintiffs, unless they would accept the charter which defendant had made to the railroad company and perform defendant’s part of that agreement. The plaintiffs then took such charter, agreeing to perform defendant’s contract with the railroad company, the owner agreeing to allow them one-half of the cost of the repairs: Held, that the new contract with the owner did not cancel the defendant’s verbal undertaking and release him from liability for damages, except to the extent of the cost of repairs agreed to be paid by the owner.</p> <p>2. Contract—implied abrogation or release. It seems when a party has become liable by the violation or breach of a contract made by him in respect to the use of property of which he is not the owner, and the injured party then procures a similar contract from the rightful owner, and in it assumes some of the undertakings of the wrong-doer to still another party, that this will not, by implication, have the effect to dissolve the first contract and release the party making it from his liability for damages.</p>