{
  "id": 2649822,
  "name": "C. M. Hensley, Appellee, v. E. B. Mitchell et al., Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hensley v. Mitchell",
  "decision_date": "1909-03-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "161",
  "last_page": "162",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 Ill. App. 161"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "117 Ill. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2892529
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/117/0446-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1952,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.286110789035209e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3312052169836929
    },
    "sha256": "c6673ee83ca1741968b0c5ea5ddb01a85b4e7cb6f3ac06b29676f1b0abb43204",
    "simhash": "1:b5bf46f6ace13850",
    "word_count": 340
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:17.407031+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. M. Hensley, Appellee, v. E. B. Mitchell et al., Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Creighton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, in the Circuit Court of Fayette county, by appellee against appellants, to recover on a promissory note duly executed and delivered by appellants to appellee. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $101.40, the amount of principal and interest due by the terms of the note.\nUpon the trial of this case in the Circuit Court, appellants offered to prove that, at the time the note was executed and delivered, it was agreed by and between the parties thereto that the note was to be paid out of the proceeds of certain broom corn sold, and that the broom corn had not been sold or the proceeds thereof collected. The court refused to permit this evidence to go to the jury, and instructed the jury \u201cthat any conversation or verbal agreement had between the parties before the signing of the note could not be considered by the jury as a defense.\u201d\nThere is no error in this ruling, nor in the instruction. The law is, that \u201cin an action upon a note, any ' verbal agreements between the parties made prior to the giving of the note as to payment, is inadmissible-in evidence to contradict or vary the terms of the note.\u201d Mosher et al. v. Rogers, 117 Ill. 446.\nNo other defense was interposed?\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Creighton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Arthur Bob, for appellants.",
      "John A. Bingham and F. M. Guinn, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. M. Hensley, Appellee, v. E. B. Mitchell et al., Appellants.\nNegotiable Instruments\u2014what evidence incompetent respecting manner of payment. In an action upon a promissory note any verbal agreements between the parties made prior to the giving of the note are inadmissible in evidence to contradict or vary the terms of the note.\nAssumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Fayette county; the Hon. Truman E. Ames, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the August term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 4, 1909.\nArthur Bob, for appellants.\nJohn A. Bingham and F. M. Guinn, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0161-01",
  "first_page_order": 179,
  "last_page_order": 180
}
