Geiger Moving & Storage Co. v. Barter Engineering Corp. (2 Ill. App. 3d 548, 1971)

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for the sum of $516.08 for moving the personal property of defendant’s employee, Carl Stanton, from Evansville, Indiana, to Benton, Illinois, and for the additional sum of $191.77 incurred in storing the items. The trial court entered judgment against the defendant in the amount of $516.08 for the moving, but disallowed the storage charge. Defendant appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals.

Appellant states the issue in this case as follows: “The sole issue in this case is whether defendant is liable for moving charges incurred by one of its employees where defendant offered to pay said charges for moving employee to Marion, Illinois, but where defendant — without authorization from plaintiff, moved the employee to Benton, Illinois.”

Carl Stanton, a field superintendent of defendant company, discussed with plaintiff the prospect of moving his personal property to a new residence in Illinois. Plaintiff received a letter dated July 2, 1968, from defendant which authorized it to move Mr. Stantons property from his residence in Evansville, Indiana, to his new residence at Marion, Illinois and bill defendant. Prior to the move, Mr. Stanton informed plaintiff that he would move to Benton, Illinois instead of Marion. Plaintiff picked up Mr. Stantons property, placed it in storage, and then moved it to Benton, Illinois as per Mr. Stantons request. The cost of moving the items of personal property to Benton, Illinois, was the same as the cost would have been to move the items to Marion, Illinois, as both cities were approximately the same distance from Evansville, although they were 17 miles from each other. After moving the items, plaintiff sent the bill of lading to the defendant, disclosing that the items had been moved to Benton. On February 10,1969, defendant wrote a letter to plaintiff asking for an itemized bill from plaintiff, stating that upon receipt of same payment would be made.

Under the foregoing circumstances, the actions of defendant ratified the act of defendant’s agent in changing the destination of the items of personal property from Marion to Benton. (1 Illinois Law & Practice, Agency, par. 208, p. 807.) Therefore, the trial court was correct in entering judgment against the defendant in the amount of $516.08, which was the amount charged for hauling the items to Benton.

Plaintiff also sued for the additional sum of $191.70 for costs involved in storing Stanton’s personal property prior to moving it. Since there was no evidence the plaintiff was authorized to store the items in question, the trial court was correct in disallowing this item.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Saline County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.