{
  "id": 2589883,
  "name": "Albert Rothschild, Surviving Partner, etc., v. Max Sessell, Executor, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rothschild v. Sessell",
  "decision_date": "1902-06-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "274",
  "last_page": "284",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "103 Ill. App. 274"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5020891
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/40/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 Ill. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        821816
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/77/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2471943
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/4/0120-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill. App. 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4980889
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/32/0282-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 Ill. 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3187427
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/168/0447-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 403",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5441059
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/137/0403-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 Ill. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Mich. 212",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        1430119
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/56/0212-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5313769
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/82/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ill. 427",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2824362
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/100/0427-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill. 383",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 Ill. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5547071
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/179/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 L. R. A. 138",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5458855
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/141/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ill. 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2605929
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/50/0412-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 H, 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "H,",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "05"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5020891
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/40/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 Ill. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        821816
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/77/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2471943
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/4/0120-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 Ill. 447",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3187427
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/168/0447-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 686,
    "char_count": 16193,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.909487702233165e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4198957159278398
    },
    "sha256": "ae49b41223d49962562225abb46a23091a9225b2d99ccfcc387d4674471b5cca",
    "simhash": "1:9f28fe70566de1af",
    "word_count": 2823
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:00:05.984899+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Albert Rothschild, Surviving Partner, etc., v. Max Sessell, Executor, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Burroughs\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a claim filed in the County Court of Macoupin County, June 29, 1899, by Julius Bothschild and Bobert Bothschild, partners doing business as Bothschild Bros., against the estate of Peter J. Hendgen, deceased, then being administered in that court by Marcus Sessell, the executor of the last will and testament of said deceased, who died in the spring of 1898.\nThe claim, when filed, was as follows:\n\u201c $3,000.00. St. Louis, Mo., Aug. 26, 1878.\nNinety days after date, I promise to pay to the order of J. Meyberg & Co., three thousand dollars, for value received, with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum from date.\n(Signed) P. J. Hendgeh.\n(Endorsements.)\n\u201c Pay to the order of Bothschild Bros.\nMeyberg & Bothschild Bros.\nJ. Meyberg & Co.\nCREDITS.\nPaid on account:\nJuly 2,\u201985.......................... $27 30\nAug. 6, \u201985.......................... 13 25\nSept. 5, \u201985.......................... 7 75\nPaid on account:\nJan\u2019y 5, \u201986.......................... $10 90\n.Feb. 5, \u201986......'.................... 17 25\nMar. 5, \u201986.......................... 3 40\nApr. 5, \u201986.......................... 1 00\nJuly 7, \u201986.......................... 13 25\nOct. 5, \u201986.......................... 6 37\nJan. 4, \u201987.....'........\"............. 24 00\nFeb. 5, \u201987.......................... 28 70\nJuly 1, \u201987.......'................... 45 00\nAug. 5, \u201987.......................... 4 00\nOct. 5, \u201987.......................... 7 00\nNov. 5, \u201987.......................... 4 00\nJan. 5, \u201988............'.............. 13 00\nFeb. 6, \u201988.......................... 16 55-\nMar. 5, \u201988.......................... 7 65\nApr. 5, \u201988.......................... 9 60\nMay 5, \u201988.......................... 3 00\nJuly 5, \u201988.......................... 66 70\nJan. 5, \u201989.......................... 19 60\nFeb. 9, \u201989.......................... 22 65\nMar. 5, \u201989....;..................... 155\nJuly 5, \u201989.......................... 36 96\nAug. 5, \u201989.......................... 1 35\nOct. 5, \u201989.......................... 8 25\nNov. 5, \u201989.......................... 1- 50\nBee. 5, \u201989.......................... 2 65\nJan. 6, \u201990.......................... 24 50\nFeb. 5, \u201990.......................... 1145\nJuly 7, \u201990................. 32 65\nAug. 5, \u201990......................... 3 45\nSept. 5, \u201990.......................... 3 95\nBee. 5, \u201990.......................... 3 56\nJan. 5,\u201991.......................... 25 30\nFeb. 5, \u201991.......................... 7 50\nMay 5, \u201991.......................... 1 70\nJuly 6, \u201991.......................... 26 50\nAug. 5, \u201991.......................... 5 00\nOct. 5, \u201991.......................... 4 90\nDec. 5, \u201991.......................... 3 55\nJan. 5, \u201992.......................... 13 00\nFeb. 5, \u201992.......................... 3 75\nJuly 5, \u201992.......................... 43 25\nAug. 5. \u201992.......................... 15 75\nDec. 5, \u201992.......................... 6 25\nJan. 5. \u201993.......................... 30 37\nPaid on account:\nFeb. 6, \u201993. $15 53\nApr. 3, \u201993, 2 50\nJune 5, \u201993. 12 50\nJuly 5, \u201993. 23 12\nDec. 5$ \u201993. 6 25\nJan. 6, \u201994. 19 05\nJune 5, \u201994, 9 70\nAug. 6, \u201994, 1 40\nDec. 5, \u201994. 3 85\nJan. 5, \u201995. 13 55\nMar. 5, \u201995 5 80\nJune s, \u201995, 5 50\nJuly 5, \u201995. 10 90\nSept. 5, \u201995 11 80\nNov. 5, \u20199.5 2 00\nDec. 5, \u201995, 15 80\nJan. 6, \u201996 15 00\nMar. 6, \u201996 2 75\nApr.' 7, \u201996 4 10\nJune 5, \u201996 5 00\nSept. 7, \u201996 2 00\nDec. 5, \u201996 9 40\nJan. 6, \u201997 6 70\nJune 5, \u201997 22 00\nDec. 3, \u201997 16 50\nJan. 5, \u201998 12 65\nFeb. 5, \u201998 2 20\nTotal $1,015 67\nIn the County Court of Macou\"pin Countv, June term, A. D. 1899.\nJulius Eothschild for Eothschild Bros., being duly sworn, on oath says that the annexed account against the estate of Peter J. Hendgen, deceased, amounting to the sum of sixty-nine hundred and eighty-four dollars and thirty-three cents, is due and unpaid after allowing all just credits. ($6984.33.)\n(Signed) Julius Eothsohild.\nSubscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of June, 1899.\nO. C. Habtly, Clerk.\u201d\nAnd afterward, on March 6,1900, said claim was amended so that it was as follows :\n\u201c St. Louis, February 26, 1900. Peter J. Hendgen Estate, in account with Rothschild Bros.\n1877.\nSept. 6, , cash .............. 00\nU 18, 66 ..... 500 00\nu 20, 66 00\nu 21, 66 ..... 1,000 00\na 25, 66 i ..... i,ooo 00\nOct. 9, 66 00\nJSTov. 27, 66 ..... 500 00\nDec. 31, interest.............. ..... 102 00\n1878\nFeb. 11, cash .............. ..... 125 00\nHar. 2, 66 00\n66 21, 66 ..... 200 00\n(6 26. 66 00\nApr. 18, 66 00\n29, 66 ..... 250 00\nJune 8, 66 00\nJuly 9, 66 ..... 500 00\n<( 10, 66 00\n66 H, 66 05\n66 10, 66 30\n66 21, 66 95\n66 23, 66 90\n66 24, 66 00\n66 25, 66 00\n66 26, 66 00\n66 31, 66 00\nAug. 26, 66 00\nDec. 31, interest.............. 38\n1881.\nJSTov. 18, cash.................. ...... 1,938 84\nTotal................... 02\n1877. CREDIT.\nDec. 1, by cash............... ..... $1,000 00\n<6 31, by note.............. 00\n66 31, interest.............. ..... 164 44\n1878.\nJune 25, by cash.............. 00\nJuly 1, 66 66 00\nAug. 16, 66 66 ..... 1,000 00\n1885.\nJuly 2, 66 66 ..... 27 30\nAug. 6, by cash................... $13 25\nSept. 5, \u201c \u201c 7 75\n1886.\nJan. 5, \u201c \u201c 10 95\nFeb. 5, \u201c \u201c 17 25\nMar. 5, \u201c \u00ab 3 40\nApr. 5, \u201c \u201c 1 00\nJuly 7, \u201c \u201c ..............\u2022...... 27 00\nAug. 5, \u201c \u201c 13 15\nOct. 5, \u201c \u201c 6 37\n1887.\nJan. 4, \u201c \u201c 24 00\nFeb. 5, \u201c \u201c 28 70\nJuly 1, \u201c \u201c 45 00\nAug. 5, \u201c \u201c 4 10\nOct. 5, \u201c \u201c 7 00\nNov 5, \u201c \u201c 4 00\n1888.\nJan. 5, \u201c \u201c 13 00\nFeb. 6, \u201c \u201c 16 55\nMar. 5, \u201c \u00ab 7 65\nApr. 5, \u201c \u201c 9 60\nMav 5, \u201c \u201c 3 00\nJuly 5, \u201c \u201c 66 70\n1889.\nJan. 5, \u201c \u201c 19 60\nFeb. 5, \u201c \u201c 22 85\nMar. 5, \u201c \u201c 1 55\nJuly 5, \u201c \u201c 36 96\nAug. 5, \u201c \u201c 1 35\nOct. 7, \u201c \u201c ..............'..... 8 25\nNov. 5, \u201c \u201c 1 50\nDec. 5, \u201c \u201c 2 65\n1890.\nJan. 6, \u201c \u201c 24 50\nFeb. 5, \u201c \u201c 11 45\nJuly 5, \u201c \u201c 32 65\nAug. o, \u201c \u201c 3 45\nSept. 5, \u201c \u201c 3 94\nDec. 5, \u201c \u201c 3 56\n1891.\nJan. 5, \u201c \u00ab 25 30\nFeb. 5, \u201c \u201c 7 50\nMav 4, \u201c \u201c 1 70\nJuly 6, \u201c \u201c 26 50\nAug. 5, \u201c \u201c 5 00\nOct. 5, by cash................... $5 90\nDec. 5, \u201c \u201c 3 55\n1892.\nJan. 5, \u201c \u201c 13 00\nFeb. 5, \u201c \u201c 3 75\nJuly 5, \u201c \u201c 43 75\nAug. 5, \u201c \u201c 15 75\nDec. 5, \u201c \u201c ................... 6 25\n1893.\nJan. 5, \u201c \u201c 30 37\nFeb. 6, \u201c \u201c 15 53\nApr. 3, \u201c \u201c 2 50\nJune 5, \u201c \u201c 12 50\nJuly 5, \u201c \u201c 40 00\nAug. 5, \u201c \u201c 23 12\nDec. 5, \u201c \u201c 5 25\n1894.\nJan. 6, \u201c \u201c 19 05\nJune 5, \u201c \u201c 9 70\nAug. 6, \u201c \u201c .:................. . 1 45\nDec. 5, \u201c \u201c 3 85\n1895.\nJan. 5, \u201c \u201c 13 55\nMar. 5, \u201c \u201c 5 80\nJune 5, \u201c \u201c 5 50\nJuly 5, \u201c \u201c 10 90\nSept. 5, \u201c \u201c 11 80\nHov. 5, \u201c \u201c 2 00\nDec. 5, \u201c \u201c 15 80\n1896.\nJan. 6, \u201c \u201c 15 00\nMar. 3, \u201c \u201c . .\u2022................. 2 75\nApr. 7, \u201c \u201c 4 10\nJune 5, \u201c \u201c 5 00\nSept. 7, \u201c \u201c 2 00\nDec. 5, \u201c \u201c 9 40\n1897.\nJan. 6, \u201c \u201c 6 70\nJune 5, \u201c \u201c 22 00\nDec. 6, \u201c \u201c 16 50\n1898.\nJan. 5, \u201c \u201c 12 65\nFeb. 5, \u201c \u201c 2 20\nTotal credits. $6,780 11\nAmount debtor forward...........$16,439 82\nAmount credits forward........... 6,780 11\n$ 9,659 71\nBefore me, W. L. Kingsland. a notary public, duly commissioned and qualified in and for the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, on this day personally appeared Julius Bothschild, who, after being by me duly sworn, stated on his oath that he is a member of the firm of Bothschild Brothers, which is composed of Albert Bothschild and Julius Bothschild, and that the foregoing and annexed open account in favor of Bothschild Bros., and against said Peter J. Hendgen estate, showing the amount due of $9,659.71, ninety-six hundred and fifty-nine and 71-100 dollars, is within the knowledge of affiant just, true and unpaid; that the said sum of ninety-six hundred and fifty-nine and 71-100 dollars is now due and owing said Bothschild Bros., and that all just and lawful offsets, payments and credits have been allowed.\n(Signed) Julius Bothschild.\nSworn to and subscribed before me this, the fifth day of March, A. D. 1900.\nMy commission expires Bebry. 11, 1903.\n(Signed) W. L. Kiugsland,\n(L. S.) Notary Public.\u201d\nThe claim was objected to by the executor, and after being heard in the County Court, was there disallowed. It was then taken to the Circuit Court where it was tried by jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the estate.\nBefore it was tried in the Circuit Court, Julius Bothschild died and the claim was thereafter prosecuted in the name of Albert Bothschild, the surviving partner, who, after the verdict had been returned against him, moved for a new trial, which was overruled and a judgment rendered disallowing the claim, to which the claimant excepted; and he has brought the case to this court by appeal, and to reverse the judgment, insists that the court improperly ruled on the evidence and instructions; that counsel for the estate made improper remarks when stating and arguing the case to the jury, and that the verdict and judgment are against the law and evidence.\nThe bill of exceptions shows that before the trial, claimant abandoned all claim upon the note upon which the claim was first founded, and relied only upon the account stated in the claim as amended.\nIn support of the claim, the account books of Bothschild Bros, were received in evidence, and they showed on the dates mentioned in the amended claim, the items there charged were entered on the books as charges to P. J, Hendgen, substantially as specified in the claim as amended, except that in some instances the item on the books showed tl cash,\u201d and in others \u201c ch.,\u201d but most of them only the date, followed by the name P. J. Hendgen, and in the dollars and cents columns the figures in amounts as shown by the amended claim.\nThe' account books were shown to be those of Bothschild Bros., kept in the course of their business selling hats in the city of St. Louis, and the bookkeeper who kept their books from 1884 to the time Hendgen died and afterward, testified that the entries made in the books as charges against Hendgen prior to 1884 were in the handwriting of the bookkeeper who preceded him; that he was dead before the trial, and that often when P. J. Hendgen paid the items with which he is credited on the books after 1884, he would say that credit be given him on the \u201c old matter;\u201d on the \u201c old account.\u201d\nIt was also shown that the items credited from 1885 forward, were for commissions due Hengden as insurance broker on premiums for insurance which Avere given him by or through Bothschild Bros., and that Hendgen had often said that if they would give him more insurance, he could and would pay them more on the \u201c old account.\u201d\nThe executor showed that after the claim had been filed and before it was amended, Julius Bothschild told him that the estate only owed Bothschild Bros, the balance of the note upon which the claim was based.\nThere were no checks or notes put in evidence to explain or add to the showing made by the books.\nThe executor invoked the statute of limitations against the claim. At the request of the executor, the court instructed the jury to the effect that if they believed from the evidence that the several items of indebtedness claimed by the claimant were all more than five years past due when the claim therefor was filed in the County Court, then they should find for the estate unless they further believed from the evidence that Hendgen, within five years prior to the filing of the claim in the County Court, promised to pay the same or made partial payments thereon, with the intention or purpose of acknowledging the entire account; and at the instance of the claimant, refused to instruct the jury that a part payment on the account in question by Hendgen within five years before the claim was filed would alone be sufficient to hold the statute of limitations.\nThe account books of the firm alone were not sufficient to prove that the entries therein of cash or check charged to the decedent by the firm, were that much money loaned to him by them, for the reason that the usual probative force of accounts kept in books in the usual course of dealing between parties as regards transactions of merchandise and the like \u201c do not apply to an account for money lent, as that is not usually the subject-matter of an account, notes being generally taken.\u201d Boyer v. Sweet, 3 Scam. 120; Ruggles v. Gatton, 50 Ill. 412; Kibbe v. Bancroft, 77 Ill. 18; House v. Beak, 141 Ill. 290; Schwarze v. Roessler, 40 Ill. App. 474; and Smith v. Rentz, 15 L. R. A. 138.\nAnd under all the evidence, it seems to us the jury were warranted in concluding that the claim had not been satisfactorily established.\nThe rulings of the court on the instructions were proper; for in order to remove the bar of the statute, it was necessary for the jury to find from the evidence that not only had the decedent made payments to the firm as claimed by them, but also that he had made them upon the identical account sued upon, with the intention thereby of recognizing the entire account. Miller v. Cinnamon, 168 Ill. 447.\nSome of the remarks of counsel for the estate should not have been made to the jury, and upon objection being made thereto by counsel for the claimant, the trial court so ruled, and gave the jury to understand that they were not to be considered, and the claimant\u2019s case was not, in our opinion, prejudiced on that account.\nThe rulings of the court on the evidence were not, in our opinion, prejudicial to the claimant in the respects claimed by his counsel; and it seems to us that, the result reached by the trial court being proper, when all the evidence is fairly considered, the judgment should and will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Burroughs"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Binaker & Binaker, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Bell & Burton, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Albert Rothschild, Surviving Partner, etc., v. Max Sessell, Executor, etc.\n1. Evidence\u2014Firm Account Books\u2014Accounts for Money Lent.\u2014The usual probative force of accounts kept in books in the usual course of dealings between parties as regards transactions of merchandise and the like does not apply to an account for money lent, as that is not usually the subject-matter of an account, notes being usually taken.\n2. Statute oe Limitations\u2014How Bar is Removed,.\u2014In order to remove the bar of the statute, it is necessary for the jury to find from the evidence that not only had payments been made, but that they had been made upon the identical account sued upon with the intention thereby of recognizing the entire account.\nClaim in Probate.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macoupin County; the Hon. Robert B. Shirley, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1901.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 20, 1902.\nBinaker & Binaker, attorneys for appellant.\nThe bar of the statute of limitations is removed by new promises or a mere payment of money as a part of a larger sum and it is not the law that such new promise or payment must also be made \u201c with the purpose and intention of acknowledging \u201d a greater indebtedness than the sum so paid. The law implies the intention and purpose from the fact of an intentional part payment only, and a new promise is the expression of such a purpose and intention. Wellman v. Miner, 179 Ill. 326; Lowery v. Gear, 32 Ill. 383; Kallenbach v. Dickinson, 100 Ill. 427; Ditch v. Vollhardt, 82 Ill. 134; Miner v. Lorman, 56 Mich. 212; 19 A. and E. Ency. Law, 323 and notes; 2 Greenleaf, Evidence, Sec. 344.\nBell & Burton, attorneys for appellee.\nThe acknowledgment and promise to pay the debt in order to avoid the bar of the statute, must arise out of such facts as identify the debt with such certainty as will clearly determine its character, fix the amount due and show a present, unqualified willingness and intention to pay it. Waldron et al. v. Alexander, 136 Ill. 562; Collar v. Patterson, 137 Ill. 403; Kallenbach v. Dickinson, 100 Ill. 427.\nProof of payment alone will not remove bar of statute of limitations. A payment alone admits only so much debt as it pays. Miller v. Cinnamon, 168 Ill. 447; Kallenbach v. Dickinson, supra; Crum v. Higold, Adm\u2019r, 32 Ill. App. 282; Parsons on Contracts, 6th Ed., Vol. 3, 74, 75.\nThe rule as to admission of books of account would not apply to an account for money lent as that is not usually the subject-matter of account, notes being generally taken. Boyer v. Sweet, 3 Scam. 120.\nThe rule there (Boyer v. Sweet, supra) has been repeatedly recognized by subsequent decisions of this court, and without any modification. It must therefore be regarded as the settled law of the court. Ruggles v. Gatton, 50 Ill. 416; Kibbe v. Bancroft, 77 Ill. 18; House v. Beak et al., 141 Ill. 299; Schwarze v. Roessler, 40 Ill. App. 474."
  },
  "file_name": "0274-01",
  "first_page_order": 304,
  "last_page_order": 314
}