{
  "id": 4861301,
  "name": "Edward B. Sprague v. Henry F. Lux",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sprague v. Lux",
  "decision_date": "1883-01-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "271",
  "last_page": "273",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 Ill. App. 271"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2621242
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/66/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 John. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 465",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2655519
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0465-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Wis. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8708188
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/33/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill. 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5270297
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/47/0342-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5289440
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/34/0100-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5275755
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/54/0523-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5212432
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/33/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Gilm. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2466508
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/6/0454-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 Ill. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2780120
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/85/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        436538
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/15/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill. 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5298202
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/46/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        817852
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/56/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5267585
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/43/0207-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 4661,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.595,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47214663866503415
    },
    "sha256": "956393f6d3aa884950b82daf6459f35896fbb0b51b2cd90e61c5187253fffdf8",
    "simhash": "1:e7b5e46f1fce6e39",
    "word_count": 816
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:05:21.386693+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward B. Sprague v. Henry F. Lux."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Davis, P. J.\nAppellee commenced two separate chancery suits against appellant, in which injunctions were issued, enjoining and restraining him from collecting the several judgments obtained by him against appellee on two promissory notes.\nOne judgment was for $143.45, rendered March 5, 1880, on a note executed March 31, 187\u20199, by Lux to Sprague for $1-30.77, due eight months afterdate, with ten per cent, interest, and the other for $104, rendered on same day on a note executed March 31, 1879, by George W. Myers as principal and Henry F. Lux, as surety, to E. B. Sprague & Co., for $95.32, due eight months after date, with ten per cent, interest.\nWhen these judgments were rendered, each note contained a power of attorney to confess a judgment, and each contained a stipulation for an attorney\u2019s fee of five dollars.\nThe judgments were rendered by confession on the power given in the notes.\nThe grounds upon which appellee sought to enjoin the collection of the two judgments were, that appellant promised not to use the notes for the purpose of obtaining judgments on them by confession, but mainly, however, on the ground that the notes had been altered without the knowledge or consent of Lux or Myers after they had been delivered, by inserting in each one, provision of an attorney\u2019s fee of five dollars.\nBefore the hearing the two causes were consolidated by order of the court below, and on the hearing, a separate finding was made in each case, and a separate decree making the injunction in each case perpetual.\nThe evidence oifered by the parties as to an alteration of the notes after execution was very conflicting; but as we view the case it was unimportant how such question might be determined. A calculation of the amount due on the notes, of principal and interest, when the judgments were rendered, shows that the attorneys\u2019 fees were not included in the judgment. And even though there might have been a technical defense to the action on the notes, yet the evidence in this case is very clear that at the time the two injunctions were issued, there was equitably due appellant the full amount for which the judgments had been rendered.\nThe statute governing the granting of injunctions is peremptory, without reference to the validity of a judgment, that \u201c Only so much of any judgment at law shall be enjoined as the complainant shall show himself equitably not bound to pay, and so much as shall be sufficient to cover costs.\u201d R. S. 1874, sec. 7, p. 579.\nThe decree, therefore, must be reversed and remanded with instructions to the court below to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the bills.\nDecree reversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Davis, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. O. Cunningham, for appellant;",
      "Mr. J. S. Wolfe and Mr. E. W. Gray, for appellee ;"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward B. Sprague v. Henry F. Lux.\nInjunction enjoining judgment at law. \u2014 Section 7 of the R. S., Chap. 69, declares that, \u201conly so much of any judgment at law shall be enjoined as the complainant shall show himself equitably not bound to pay and so much as shall be sufficient to cover costs.\u201d Although in this ease there might have been a technical defense to the action on the notes, yet as the evidence is very clear that at the time the two injunctions were issued there was equitably due appellant the full amount for which the judgment had been rendered, the decree is reversed and the court below is instructed to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the bill.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign county; the Hon. C. B. Smith, Judge, presiding.\nOpinion filed January 16, 1883.\nMr. J. O. Cunningham, for appellant;\nthat the terms of a written contract can not be waiv\u00e9d or changed by verbal promises made at the time of entering into the same, cited Kirkpatrick v. Taylor, 43 Ill. 207; Walker v. Crawford, 56 Ill. 444; Hiller v. Wells, 46 Ill. 46; Harlow v. Boswell, 15 Ill. 56; Weaver v. Fries, 85 Ill. 356.\nIn chancery as well as at law, allegations must be certain, specific and proofs should correspond : Fitzpatrick v. Beatty, 1 Gilm. 454.\nPleadings are taken most strongly against the party making the plea: Happy v. Morton, 33 Ill. 398; West v. Schnebly, 54 Ill. 523.\nAs to the effect of an alteration in a written instrument: Vogle v. Ripper, 34 Ill. 100; Elliott v. Blair, 47 Ill. 342; Matteson v. Ellsworth, 33 Wis. 488; Gordon v. Robertson, N. W. Rep. March 6, 1880.\nMr. J. S. Wolfe and Mr. E. W. Gray, for appellee ;\ncited Burwell v. Orr, 84 Ill. 465; Hubbard v. Hobson, Breese, 147; Arden v. Patterson, 5 John. 44.\nAlthough a witness is shown to have knowingly testified falsely to a material fact, yet such portions of his testimony as may be corroborated by other evidence should not be rejected: Crabtree v. Hagenbaugh, 25 Ill. 240; C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Buttolf, 66 Ill. 347."
  },
  "file_name": "0271-01",
  "first_page_order": 267,
  "last_page_order": 269
}