{
  "id": 2558009,
  "name": "Amos W. Walker v. Reuben R. Freeman, Executor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walker v. Freeman",
  "decision_date": "1903-11-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "404",
  "last_page": "406",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "110 Ill. App. 404"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        428215
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/38/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill. 383",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ill. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill. App. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Pet. 360",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Pet.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ill. App. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ill. App. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ill. App. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5302909
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/98/0610-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Mass. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 Ill. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176, 179"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        441732
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/19/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2681483
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "50"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/80/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2633853
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/69/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 Ill. App. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5292741
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/94/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5192802
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/67/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ill. App. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5302909
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/98/0610-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 350,
    "char_count": 4599,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.377639584392758
    },
    "sha256": "4383a1c69c0cfa6a95a06b9dbbee9608083ec230de5e9788e2cf19d7d3a0589c",
    "simhash": "1:5c186af60777200a",
    "word_count": 835
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:47.315792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Amos W. Walker v. Reuben R. Freeman, Executor."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a suit upon a promissory note executed by appellant, dated March 15, 1883, payable one day after date, against which the bar of the statute of limitations was pleaded. To this plea appellee replied, alleging a new promise in writing.\nThe facts involved are fully stated in opinions filed in this court upon two former appeals, and need not be repeated. Freeman v. Walker, 67 Ill. App. 309; Walker v. Freeman, 94 Ill. App. 357.\nThe question presented in the present record is whether a letter written by appellant, bearing date January 31, 1891, contains a statement by the debtor clearly admitting the debt to be due, and showing that the writer intends to pay it. Such admission of the debt and expression of intention to paj^ made in writing has the effect to take the obligation out of the bar of the statute. Honn v. Pinnell, 61 Ill. App. 139, and cases there cited. In Carroll v. Forsyth, 69 Ill. 127, it is said that to remove the bar of the statute the plaintiff must prove an express promise to pay, or a conditional promise with a performance of the condition, \u201c or an unqualified admission that the debt is due and unpaid, nothing being said or done at the time rebutting the presumption of a promise to pay; it must be of such a character as to clearly show a recognition of the debt, and an intention to pay it,\u201d citing several cases in the same court. A conditional promise will not suffice, unless there is proof that the condition has been fulfilled. Boone v. A\u2019Hern, 98 Ill. App. 610, and cases cited.\nThe letter in controversy speaks of \u201c my indebtedness to Mr. Koontz \u201d and states that had he not been disappointed in his expectations, the writer \u201c would have met this note before, but as it is I must pay it along now just as I can from my salary;\u201d and \u201c my prospects are brightening and I want to arrange to meet my note just as fast as I can.\u201d He then proposes to give a new note \u201c for am\u2019t due Feb\u2019y 1, having five years tq pay it in, bearing seven per cent int. I agreeing to pay interest annually and as much on note as I can.\u201d The new note does not appear to have been given, but the language referred to certainly contains an unqualified admission that the debt is due and unpaid, and shows that the writer intends to pay it.\nThis conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider other questions discussed in the briefs. The judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Freeman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John TI. Bradley, attorney for appellant.",
      "Alden, Latham & Young, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Amos W. Walker v. Reuben R. Freeman, Executor.\n1. Limitations\u2014What is Necessary to Remove the Bar of the Statute.\u2014To remove the bar .of the statute of limitations the plaintiff must prove an express promise to pay, or a conditional promise with a performance of the condition, or an unqualified admission that the debt is due and unpaid, nothing being said or done at the time rebutting the presumption of a promise to pay;-it must be of such a character as to clearly show a recognition of the debt, and an intention to pay it. A conditional promise will not suffice, unless there is proof that the condition has been fulfilled.\nAssumpsit, upon a promissory note. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edmund W. Burke, Judge presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1902.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 17, 1903.\nJohn TI. Bradley, attorney for appellant.\nThere must be an actual promise; an admission that th'e' debt once existed is not sufficient to revive it. Wachter v. Albee, 80 Ill. 47, 50; Ayers v. Richards, 12 Ill. 148; Keener v. Crull, 19 Ill. 189; Ennis v. P. P. Car Co., 165 Ill. 175, 176, 179; Krebs v. Olmstead, 137 Mass. 505; Boone v. A\u2019Hern, 98 Ill. App. 610; Hahn v. Gates, 102 Ill. App. 390-1.\nThe promise must be absolute and unconditional. A conditional promise will not revive the action. Teessen v. Camblin, 1 Ill. App. 428; Kimmel v. Schwartz, Breese, 281; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 360; Read v. Wilkinson, 2 Wash. C. C. R. 517; Drury v. Henderson, 36 Ill. App. 523-4; Kallenbach v, Dickinson, 100 Ill. 428; Lowery v. Gear, 32 Ill. 383; Wachter v. Albee, 80 Ill. 47; Dickerson v. Sutton, 40 Ill. 404; Parsons v. N. Ill. Coal & Iron Co., 38 Ill. 430; Boone v. A\u2019Hern, 98 Ill. App. 610; Hahn v. Gates, 102 Ill. App. 390-1.\nAlden, Latham & Young, attorneys for appellee.\nA written promise to pay may be inferred from a written acknowledgment of the debt or a written admission of debt, showing an unqualified intention to pay. Starr & C. Stat., Chap. 83, Sec. 16; Honn v. Pinnell, 61 Ill. App. 139; 1 Wood on Lim., Sec. 84 (2d Ed.); Haydon v. Williams, 7 Bing. 163."
  },
  "file_name": "0404-01",
  "first_page_order": 426,
  "last_page_order": 428
}