{
  "id": 2624615,
  "name": "C. Quinlan, Defendant in Error, v. Gus Thompson, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Quinlan v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1909-12-23",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 14,819",
  "first_page": "275",
  "last_page": "277",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 Ill. App. 275"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5248605
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0013-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 Ill. 17",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3299598
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/209/0017-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 4607,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.693364842781294e-08,
      "percentile": 0.529564271893844
    },
    "sha256": "1882aff9c4bc11054e2623b2c5a88267cc9d46a65eda771c74dd41ffe2b92d0c",
    "simhash": "1:1353dbe55c5f30e2",
    "word_count": 846
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:41.765695+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. Quinlan, Defendant in Error, v. Gus Thompson, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Freemah\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is a suit to recover an alleged balance of $130 claimed by the plaintiff to be due on an open account for merchandise. The suit was begun May 29, 1908, and the last payment on the account was made June 23,1902, over five years intervening after the cause of action is said to have accrued.\nThe defendant does not deny the correctness of the original account and that the balance claimed has not been paid, but contends that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The only question involved is whether the defendant acknowledged the debt and by an alleged promise to pay since the last payment on account was made and within five years before the suit was begun has taken the debt out of the bar of the statute.\nThe evidence introduced on the part of the plaintiff is that of the plaintiff\u2019s bookkeeper. He testified that the balance due upon the account on June 23, 1902, when the last payment by the defendant was made, was $130; that in 1903 the defendant called on the plaintiff at the latter\u2019s place of business and in the presence of the witness said that he expected to get into business in a few months and that \"he would pay just as soon as he was able,\u201d or that \"if he did not get started in business and get regular employment, that he would then pay just as soon as he could get the money;\u201d that defendant did not dispute the account and was shown a statement of it. The witness further testifies that in 1905 in response to a letter from plaintiff, the defendant again came in and saw the plaintiff, and told him in presence of the witness, that he, the defendant, \u201ccould not pay then but that he would pay as soon as he was able or got employment; that he need not be afraid of the account, but that he would pay it when he could; that the account was correct,\u201d and that defendant was shown a statement of the account.\nThe defendant admitted that he did receive letters from the plaintiff, one in 1903, and another in 1905, and that he called on plaintiff both times; but testifies that he did not make the statements ascribed to him by plaintiff\u2019s witness, but \"told Quinlan the first time in 1903 that I could not pay and did not know when I could, as-1 was hard up and my family needed all the money I could give them;\u201d that he never told plaintiff at any time \u201cthat the account was correct and that I would pay when I got employment or got started in business or when I was able.\u201d\nThe Municipal Court found the issues of fact in favor of the plaintiff and gave judgment against the defendant for the amount claimed.\nIt is contended in behalf of the defendant that \u201ca promise to pay when the promisor is able or on a named contingency, is a conditional promise and there can be no recovery without proof that the contingency has happened. \u2019 \u2019 The cases are not harmonious on this question, but it must be regarded as settled in this state. In Walker v. Freeman, 209 Ill. 17-23, the court says: \u201cThere is no force in the arguments that the statements by appellant in substance, in his letters that he will pay when he is able, and that he expects soon to have an increase in his salary and that he had other indebtedness to which he felt it his duty to give preference and which he would first pay before paying the note in question, made the promise conditional. Such promises are to be performed in the future.\u201d It was held that the letters referred to constituted \u201can unqualified promise to pay the debt, thereby removing the bar of the statute.\u201d\nAmong the cases cited in support of the views expressed in that case is Horner v. Starkey, 27 Ill. 13. In that case it was held that a statement of the debtor that \u201che was not in condition then to pay * * * but that when he made a raise he would do so,\u201d was \u201ca direct promise to pay\u201d the debt, \u201cnot then, it is true, but in the future.\u201d\nThese views are decisive of the case before us. The judgment of the Municipal Court must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Freemah"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chatty Bros. & Jarvis and Charles S. Khttosor, for plaintiff in error.",
      "P. F. Murray, for defendant in error; John T. Murray, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. Quinlan, Defendant in Error, v. Gus Thompson, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 14,819.\nStatute of Limitations\u2014what promise to pay sufficient to remove bar. An unqualified promise to pay a debt, accompanied by a statement of inability then to pay, is sufficient to arrest the running of the statute.\nAssumpsit. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Mazzini Slusser, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1908.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 23, 1909.\nChatty Bros. & Jarvis and Charles S. Khttosor, for plaintiff in error.\nP. F. Murray, for defendant in error; John T. Murray, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0275-01",
  "first_page_order": 293,
  "last_page_order": 295
}