Lawrence v. Johnson

Illinois Supreme Court
Lawrence v. Johnson, 64 Ill. 351 (Ill. 1872)

Lawrence v. Johnson

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

In this case, Winston being merely an agent to collect the note, had no power to extend the time of payment, and thus discharge the sureties, without the consent of his principal. Nolan v. Jackson, 16 Ill. 274.

We are also of opinion that the defendants did not prove a contract to extend the time of payment, except one of a conditional .character. Even if Winston had had authority, he made no binding contract.

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Sardis S. Lawrence, use, etc. v. Darius Johnson
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Principal and agent—effect of contract by agent in excess of Ms authority on the rights of his principal. Where a person is employed merely as an agent to collect a promissory note, he can not, without the consent of his principal, make a contract with the principal maker of the note to extend the time of payment, and thus discharge the sureties on the note of their liability.