
    Nathan Weiss, Defendant in Error, v. Fred Bender Store Fixture Company, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,251.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Corporations, § 440
      
       — when corporation has power to guarantee rent. Where a corporation guarantees the payment of rent and as a direct result thereof the business for which it was formed will be enhanced, the guaranty is within its implied powers and enforceable against it.
    2. Corporations, § 439* — when evidence sufficient to show execution of guaranty hy corporation. In an action to recover on a-guarantee of rent by a corporation, evidence held sufficient to warrant a finding that it was executed by the corporation.
    8. Corporations, § 440* — when evidence sufficient to show that corporation, was hound hy guaranty. In an action to recover on a guaranty of rent by a corporation dealing in store fixtures, evi-. dence held sufficient to show that as a result of the guaranty the corporation sold certain fixtures owned by it and was bound by the guaranty.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. J. J. Sullivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 27, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Nathan Weiss, plaintiff, against Fred Bender Store Fixture Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover on a guaranty. To reverse a judgment for $70 for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
    Victor B. Scott, for plaintiff in error.
    George H. Fenn, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Yola. XI to XV, ana Cumulative Quarterly, same topic ana section number.
    
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Corporations, § 439 — when evidence sufficient to show authority of officer to execute guaranty. Where it appears that a guaranty by a corporation which was intra vires was executed by its secretary and treasurer who owned forty-eight per cent, of the capital stock and was also manager of the company, and there was other evidence showing that the execution was authorized, a finding that he had authority to execute the guaranty is warranted.

5. Corporations, § 442* — when corporation estopped to deny authority of officers to execute guaranty. A corporation which has received the benefits of a guaranty executed by one of its officers' on its behalf, and which was within its corporate powers, will not be heard to deny the officer’s authority to execute the guaranty.  