Fieschko v. Herlich

6 Citing cases

  1. Moore v. Lewis

    51 Ill. App. 3d 388 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)   Cited 27 times
    Holding that a mortgage is incident to a debt and may not be assigned at law, and that the transfer of the debt carries with it the mortgage security

    Rather, the plaintiff is claiming that he was damaged because the defendant purported to make a contract in the name of the Savings and Loan which she was not authorized to make. It is well settled that one who purports as agent to enter into a contract upon which the principal is not bound because the agent has contracted without or in excess of the authority given is personally liable for the damage this occasions to the contracting party because, in effect, the agent warranted his or her authority. (3 Am.Jur.2d Agency § 298, 299 (1962); Fieschko v. Herlich (1961), 32 Ill. App.2d 280, 172 N.E.2d 376.) Accordingly, accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true for purposes of review, the defendant could be found liable for a breach of the implied warranty of authority unless (1) the contract for some reason other than lack of authority was not binding on the Savings and Loan; (2) any damages which occurred were not caused by the breach of warranty or (3) the plaintiff was not damaged by the defendant's actions.

  2. Pease v. McPike

    2015 Ill. App. 2d 140881 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    Accordingly, unless there is a document signed by Pease showing that Pease was the "Nominee" under the First Contract, or a document signed by Pease authorizing Plumeri to act as Pease's agent, then the Statute of Frauds serves as a bar to Sellers' claim that he was a party to the First Contract. See Prodomos v. Poulos, 202 Ill. App. 3d 1024, 1029 (1990) ("In a contract for the sale of land, an agent may sign the contract only if the authority to do so is in writing."); see also Flannery v. Marathon Oil Co., 75 Ill. App. 3d 690, 693-94 (1979) (because the written offer to purchase was never signed by the defendant as the party to be charged, or by any person lawfully authorized by the defendant, the contract came within the prohibition of the Statute of Frauds, which requires that contracts for the sale of lands shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized in writing, signed by such party); Fieschko v. Herlich, 32 Ill. App. 2d 280, 286 (1961) ("It is the law in Illinois that an agent can only sign a contract for the sale of real estate containing such terms as his principal authorized him to execute, and such authority must be in writing signed by the principal in order to comply with the Statute of Frauds."). ¶ 43 Sellers rely on three documents to show that Pease was a party to the First Contract: the Cancellation Notice, Pease's October 3, 2007, letter, and Pease's complaint. According to Sellers, these three documents, considered independently with the First Contract, show that Pease was a party to the First Contract. However, as we discuss, none of these documents show that Pease was the nominee under the First Contract or that Pease authorized Plumeri to act as Pease's agent when signing the First Contract. Accordingly, none of these documents show that Pease was a party to the First Contract. ¶ 44 Beginning with the Cancellation Notice, Sellers point out that that document specifically referred to the First Contra

  3. Monti v. Tangora

    99 Ill. App. 3d 575 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 11 times

    Buyer cites also 1 Ill. L. Prac. Agency § 119 (1978), for the proposition that an attorney may be an agent for the sale of land. This is true. However, the same authority notes the case of Fieschko v. Herlich (1961), 32 Ill. App.3d 280, 177 N.E.2d 376, which holds that the authority of an agent to bind his principal to a contract for the sale of realty must be in writing signed by the principal. The case also states that the agent can only sign a contract containing such terms as his principal authorizes.

  4. Cosmopolitan Nat'l Bk. of Chicago v. Kobialka

    406 N.E.2d 150 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 8 times
    In Kobialka the purchaser countersued the trustee and beneficiaries of an Illinois land trust for specific performance of a written contract to sell an apartment building which formed the res of the trust.

    Based on these letters and documents, Kobialka and Farago argue the conduct of the Kogans in directing the execution of documents promised by Brown, their agent, ratified Brown's execution of the real estate contract. • 3, 4 An agent's unauthorized execution of a contract of sale for real estate may be ratified by the principal so as to avoid the Statute of Frauds. ( Fieschko v. Herlich (1961), 32 Ill. App.2d 280, 177 N.E.2d 376.) However, "[t]he general rule is that the act of ratification must be of the same nature as that which would be required for conferring the authority in the first instance. Where the law requires the authority to be in writing the ratification must also be written."

  5. Central States Welfare Fund v. Pitman

    383 N.E.2d 793 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 8 times
    Finding personal liability when the signature indicated that the signer, as an individual, would make the payments

    ) More recently courts have recognized and applied the same principle. See, e.g., Moore v. Lewis (1st Dist. 1977), 51 Ill. App.3d 388, 366 N.E.2d 594; Fieschko v. Herlich (2d Dist. 1961), 32 Ill. App.2d 280, 177 N.E.2d 376. • 4 Defendant points to his signature on the note and contends the word "By" under the corporate name indicates that he was signing as an agent, not as an individual.

  6. Laff v. Chapman Performance Products, Inc.

    63 Ill. App. 3d 297 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978)   Cited 29 times

    ( Korman v. Wanen Catalpa Apartments, Inc. (1959), 20 Ill. App.2d 598, 156 N.E.2d 621 (abstract).) When an agent contracts for goods or services on behalf of a disclosed principal he is not personally liable ( Fieschko v. Herlich (1961), 32 Ill. App.2d 280, 177 N.E.2d 376) and a party suing both agent and principal assumes the burden of proving joint liability. Gieseke v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (1963), 46 Ill. App.2d 131, 195 N.E.2d 32.