{
  "id": 2630993,
  "name": "In re ESTATE OF GENEVIEVE WETMORE, Deceased.-(WILLIAM A. DEMINT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES J. GREGORY, Defendant-Appellee.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Demint v. Gregory",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-473",
  "first_page": "96",
  "last_page": "98",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 Ill. App. 3d 96"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "76 N.E.2d 543",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 Ill. App. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5031546,
        5030022
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/333/0045-01",
        "/ill-app/333/0045-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N.E.2d 648",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. App. 2d 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5169239
      ],
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/13/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N.E.2d 344",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ill. App. 2d 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5802175
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/53/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N.E.2d 953",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 Ill. App. 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5618480
      ],
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/286/0494-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N.E.2d 124",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. 2d 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2803968
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/24/0320-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N.E.2d 269",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. 2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2761781
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/16/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.E.2d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. App. 3d 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2460745
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/15/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.E.2d 705",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ill. App. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3154830
      ],
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/290/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5267585
      ],
      "year": 1867,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/43/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 Ill. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2872522
      ],
      "year": 1885,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/114/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 N.E.2d 311",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1942,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "314"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "379 Ill. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2552530
      ],
      "year": 1942,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "104"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/379/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 N.E.2d 166",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ill. App. 2d 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5157839
      ],
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/10/0410-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 370,
    "char_count": 4849,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.738,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.860813592636117e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4179197319998193
    },
    "sha256": "9ee8539a5622cddd5b12b5d7e36df8f32916df13ddb5dc70ae432d411bccdf49",
    "simhash": "1:6ac574e63eb4844a",
    "word_count": 821
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:53.941211+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re ESTATE OF GENEVIEVE WETMORE, Deceased.\u2014(WILLIAM A. DEMINT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES J. GREGORY, Defendant-Appellee.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE KARNS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAppellant, William A. DeMint, filed a claim against the estate of Genevieve Wetmore on a promissory note payable to him and signed by the decedent. From an order of the Circuit Court of Randolph County denying appellant\u2019s claim, he appeals.\nThe decedent was 101 years old at the time of her death and 90 years old when the note was made. At death, she left assets totaling less than $10,000. The note provided: \u201cUpon my death, I promise to pay to the order of William A. DeMint the sum of Twenty Thousand and no/100 Dollars. With interest at no interest from date until paid * \u00bb \u00ab Value received. Interest pays annually. For particular kindness to me and members of the Wetmore family during the course of many years.\u201d The provisions relating to interest, time of payment and the final sentence stating the reason for the making, were handwritten onto a printed form promissory note.\nThe executor argues that the note is not supported by sufficient consideration and so shows on its face. The claimant argues that consideration for a promissory note is presumed and the burden of rebutting this presumption is on the executor. While this is the general rule (Steiner v. Rig-A-Jig Toy Co., 10 Ill. App. 2d 410, 135 N.E.2d 166 (1956)), the instant note specifically states that it was given \u201c[f]or particular kindness to me and all the members of the Wetmore family during the course of many years.\u201d Although the instrument also states that \u201cvalue\u201d was received for it, value is not the same legal concept as consideration for a promissory note. (Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 26, \u00a73 \u2014 408, UCC Comment 2 (Smith-Hurd 1963).) Moreover, even if we were to conclude that value here meant consideration, the above-quoted phrase was handwritten and therefore must be given effect over tire printed statement in the note that value was received. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 26, par. 3 \u2014 118(b).) Thus, the instant instrument is one which on its face states that it was given only for affection and kindness.\nIn Illinois a promissory note which sets forth facts showing that it was given for no other consideration but kindness and affection is unenforceable. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 26, pars. 3 \u2014 306(c), 3 \u2014 408; Meyer v. Meyer, 379 Ill. 97, 104, 39 N.E.2d 311, 314 (1942); Williams v. Forbes, 114 Ill. 167 (1885); Kirkpatrick v. Taylor, 43 Ill. 207 (1867); Chandler v. Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., 290 Ill. App. 509, 8 N.E.2d 705 (1937).) Nor does this note or the record indicate that the decedent executed it in satisfaction of any antecedent obligation she owed the claimant. We cannot agree with the claimant that the \u201cparticular kindness\u201d bestowed upon the decedent by the claimant was an antecedent obligation within the meaning of section 3 \u2014 408 of the Commercial Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 26, par. 3 \u2014 408). Since the claimant is the nephew of the decedent, the law presumes gratuitous any services rendered, absent proof of a contract to pay for such services. (Meyer v. Meyer; In re Estate of White, 15 Ill. App. 3d 200, 303 N.E.2d 569 (1973).) While kindness and affection is sufficient consideration to support a deed (Klass v. Hallas, 16 Ill. 2d 161, 157 N.E.2d 269 (1959); Boryca v. Parry, 24 Ill. 2d 320, 181 N.E.2d 124 (1962)), this rule is not applicable to a promissory note. (Kirkpatrick v. Taylor.) The latter instrument if not supported by consideration is deemed a promise to make an inter vivos gift until payment is made, and thus is revocable. This note then is also ambulatory and, alternatively, can be enforced as a testamentary gift only if executed in conformity with the requirements of the Probate Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 3, par. 43). The record, however, does not indicate that the instant note was so executed nor that it was intended as a testamentary disposition. Therefore, this instrument is invalid either as an inter vivos or a testamentary gift, and the claimant cannot enforce it against the maker\u2019s estate. Hershe v. Estate of Rinkenberger, 286 Ill. App. 494, 3 N.E.2d 953 (1936). See also In re Ruebush\u2019s Estate, 53 Ill. App. 2d 54, 202 N.E.2d 344 (1964); Sucher v. Nabenkoegel, 13 Ill. App. 2d 248, 141 N.E.2d 648 (1957); In re Charters Estate, 333 Ill. App. 45, 76 N.E.2d 543 (1947).\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Randolph County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nEBERSPACHER and G. J. MORAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE KARNS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John R. Sprague, of Sprague, Sprague & Ysursa, of Belleville, for appellant.",
      "William A. Schuwerk and William A. Schuwerk, Jr., both of Schuwerk & Schuwerk, of Chester, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re ESTATE OF GENEVIEVE WETMORE, Deceased.\u2014(WILLIAM A. DEMINT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES J. GREGORY, Defendant-Appellee.)\nFifth District\nNo. 75-473\nOpinion filed February 19, 1976.\nRehearing denied March 22, 1976.\nJohn R. Sprague, of Sprague, Sprague & Ysursa, of Belleville, for appellant.\nWilliam A. Schuwerk and William A. Schuwerk, Jr., both of Schuwerk & Schuwerk, of Chester, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0096-01",
  "first_page_order": 122,
  "last_page_order": 124
}