- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Strong v. Friedman
261 Ill. App. 602 (Ill. App. Ct. 1930)2 Citing cases
City of Chicago v. Hart Bldg. Corp.
116 Ill. App. 2d 39 (Ill. App. Ct. 1969) Cited 20 timesIn City of Chicago v. Hart Building Corporation, 116 Ill. App.2d 39, 253 N.E.2d 496 (1969), the court stated that "[t]o sustain the respondent's contention [that discovery of alleged fraud on the court is impermissible] in this regard would be to enable him to profit from his own wrongs."
As a receiver, he was an officer of the court which had appointed him, held the property entrusted to him in custodia legis, and had to be most fair and frank in all of his dealings with the court. Strong v. Friedman, 261 Ill. App. 602, 620 (1931). The record clearly demonstrates that Keefe did not deal with the court fairly and frankly in this case.
Foley Co. v. Excelsior Stove Mfg. Co.
265 Ill. App. 78 (Ill. App. Ct. 1932) Cited 6 timesIn Foley Company v. Excelsior Stove Mfg. Co., 265 Ill. App. 78, plaintiff had shipped 25,502 catalogs which had been printed according to specifications.
The authority of the witness Whalen, when he was sent to Quincy by appellee, was expressly limited to securing information and investigation and reporting back. Whalen was plant superintendent for appellee and had no authority to speak or negotiate for appellee. Any statement that he made was not binding upon appellee. No tender of proof was made as to what this witness would testify to, and there was, therefore, no error. ( Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Carroll, 206 Ill. 318, 328; Strong v. Friedman, 261 Ill. App. 602, 618; Wigmore on Evidence, 2d Ed., vol. 3, sec. 1769.) There was some testimony offered quoting Whalen and Ohlin that the catalogues could be used without charge and that appellee would reprint. Under no theory could this promise be held as binding on appellee for Whalen was merely a plant superintendent or foreman, and not an official of the corporation, and as such, had no implied authority to make any promise binding upon appellee.