{
  "id": 2827094,
  "name": "O. J. Astry, Defendant in Error, v. Fox River Distilling Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Astry v. Fox River Distilling Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,488",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "340",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 339"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2239,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "sha256": "c97c40fbee2fb9d2288cacb7a93bb2a62486a7d3c77281ed420c3ec227d4ae85",
    "simhash": "1:8d3bdc05382fe4dd",
    "word_count": 392
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "O. J. Astry, Defendant in Error, v. Fox River Distilling Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice F. A. Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice F. A. Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Isadore S. Blumenthal, for plaintiff in error; Maurice Alschuler, of counsel.",
      "Baker & Holder, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "O. J. Astry, Defendant in Error, v. Fox River Distilling Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 18,488.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Chables A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 14, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by O. J. Astry against Fox Eiver Distilling Company, a corporation to recover on a promissory note made by defendant and indorsed to plaintiff. From judgment in favor of plaintiff for $517.85, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 373 \u2014prima facie case. Introduction of note makes a prima facie case.\n2. Bills and notes, \u00a7 391*\u2014presumption in favor of holder. Presumed that holder acquired the note for a valuable consideration before maturity asd without notice.\n3. Bills and notes, \u00a7 92*\u2014presumption as to memoranda on hack of note. A memorandum on the back of note will be presumed to have been made when the note was executed and to be no part of the body of the note, in the absence of any testimony on that subject.\n4. Bills and notes, \u00a7 92*\u2014memorandum on hack of note construed. In suit on a note payable in nine months after date, a memorandum on the back thereof by the maker, \u201cwill pay as soon as our claim of $717.13 is satisfactorily settled,\u201d when considered as having been made when note was executed, will be construed to mean that note is payable nine months after date at all events and to be paid before if the claim is settled before that time.\n5. Bills and notes, \u00a7 367*\u2014necessity of proving execution or assignment. Holder of note not required to prove the maker\u2019s or payee\u2019s signatures in the absence of a verified plea denying execution or assignment.\n6. Bills and notes, \u00a7 363*\u2014when execution and assignment are admitted. In the absence of any denial of the execution of the note or of the signature of the payee, the execution and the assignment are admitted.\nIsadore S. Blumenthal, for plaintiff in error; Maurice Alschuler, of counsel.\nBaker & Holder, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 363,
  "last_page_order": 364
}