{
  "id": 5344202,
  "name": "Joseph Grotz et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George V. Jerutis, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grotz v. Jerutis",
  "decision_date": "1973-07-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 57274",
  "first_page": "543",
  "last_page": "546",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 Ill. App. 3d 543"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 278,
    "char_count": 4909,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.774,
    "sha256": "273ccbd94475e0c390e60dd1eacc1ef34984e93fa72b8f92543f070555fae9d5",
    "simhash": "1:c8def7c25bc706f4",
    "word_count": 784
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:28.394088+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph Grotz et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George V. Jerutis, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs, Joseph Grotz, Anna Grotz and Margaret Strieder, brought an action for $17,000 loaned to defendant, George Jeratis, on an oral promise to repay. After a bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $17,000 plus 6 per cent interest from the date of execution of the instruments. On appeal defendant contends:\n1. Oral evidence is not admissible to vary the terms of the note; and\n2. The evidence did not establish an oral promise to personally repay the loan.\nThe facts are as follows:\nOn April 12, 1966, plaintiffs lent defendant $7,000, evidenced by a bank money order payable to \u201cGeorge V. Jeratis\u201d, and endorsed by \u201cGeorge V. Jerutis\u201d. Defendant introduced into evidence a note dated April 11, 1966, signed by \u201cGeorge V. Jerutis, V. President, Region Invest. Prop. Developers Inc.\u201d, promising to pay defendants $7,000. On October 6, 1966, plaintiffs lent defendant $10,000, evidenced by a bank money order payable to \u201cGeorge V. Jeratis\u201d and endorsed by \u201cGeorge V. Jeratis\u201d. Defendant introduced into evidence a note dated October 5, 1966, signed by \u201cGeorge V. Jeratis, Ex. V. President Region Invest. Property Developers Inc.\u201d Defendant testified that he told plaintiffs that they were lending the money to the corporation and he also testified that all the corporate books and records were destroyed. Plaintiffs, Joseph Grotz and Margaret L. Strieder, testified that defendant told them to make out the checks to him personally. Plaintiffs further testified that they thought and were led to believe that the money was lent to defendant personally.\nDefendant\u2019s first contention on appeal was that oral evidence was not admissible to vary the terms of the note. This action was not on the note, but on defendant\u2019s oral promise to repay money which he had borrowed. Defendant contends that the corporate promissory note is a complete defense to plaintiffs\u2019 action.\nSection 3 \u2014 403 ( 3) of the Commercial Code provides:\n\u201cExcept as otherwise established the name of an organization preceded or followed by the name and office of an authorized individual is a signature made in a representative capacity.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 19, ch. 2, par. 3 \u2014 403 ( 3).\nThis section does not expressly exempt the authorized agent who signs in a representative capacity naming his principal from personal liability. There is nothing in the record to show that defendant was authorized to borrow money in the corporation\u2019s behalf.\nThere is no presumption that a transaction was reduced to a single document and therefore if plaintiffs do not disclose such a document as a part of their case, defendant must produce the document and demonstrate that the document covers the precise transaction in issue before the parol evidence rule may be invoked. (Wigmore on Evidence, section 2447 ( 3d ed.).) There is nothing in the Illinois statute above about parol evidence. The evidence introduced by plaintiffs showed that the two checks were made out to the defendant personally and that the defendant personally cashed the checks. Defendant testified that the corporate records were destroyed and therefore he was unable to show that the corporation authorized him to borrow the money and that the money was used for corporate purposes. Plaintiffs Strieder and Joseph Grotz testified that they considered the loan a personal loan to the defendant and that they met the defendant many times at the Grotz\u2019s home.\nThe trial court correctly allowed parol evidence to be introduced because the note was not a complete integration of the loan agreement. The parol evidence was properly admissible to show the intention of the parties.\nDefendant\u2019s second contention on appeal was that the evidence did not establish an oral promise to personally repay the loan. Plaintiffs, Joseph Grotz and Margaret Strieder testified that they considered the loans to be personal loans to the defendant and that the defendant led them to believe that he was personally borrowing the money. The two checks were made out to the defendant personally and the defendant personally cashed the checks. The corporate records were destroyed and no testimony of a corporate employee was introduced to corroborate defendant\u2019s testimony that the money was used for corporate purposes. The evidence supports the trial court\u2019s determination that defendant made an oral promise to personally repay the loan.\nFor the above reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is hereby affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nBURMAN, P.J., and DIERINGER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gorman and Drugas, of Chicago, (Robert J. Gorman, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Klein, Thorpe, Kasson and Jenkins, of Chicago, (Robert F. Peck, of counsel,) for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph Grotz et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George V. Jerutis, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 57274;\nFirst District (4th Division) \u2014\nJuly 11, 1973.\nGorman and Drugas, of Chicago, (Robert J. Gorman, of counsel,) for appellant.\nKlein, Thorpe, Kasson and Jenkins, of Chicago, (Robert F. Peck, of counsel,) for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0543-01",
  "first_page_order": 565,
  "last_page_order": 568
}