{
  "id": 2842852,
  "name": "Harry A. Biossat, Defendant in Error, v. M. B. Louis and T. W. Brophy, Defendants, (Truman W. Brophy, Plaintiff in Error.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Biossat v. Louis",
  "decision_date": "1913-12-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,642",
  "first_page": "436",
  "last_page": "437",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "184 Ill. App. 436"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2112,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "8ea3ee4aac83faa26d9b2475528ad8332a3364c18d98fe5264436fd583e6aacf",
    "simhash": "1:4f7bc214708b60ed",
    "word_count": 372
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:41.859813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harry A. Biossat, Defendant in Error, v. M. B. Louis and T. W. Brophy, Defendants, (Truman W. Brophy, Plaintiff in Error.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Appeal and ebbob, \u00a7 1236 \u2014when plaintiff in error cannot shift his position. Plaintiff in error cannot urge grounds wholly at variance with the position assumed by him in the trial court. He cannot be permitted to shift his position in the court of review.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Patrick H. O\u2019Donnell and D. P. Pennywitt, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Joseph L. McNab, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harry A. Biossat, Defendant in Error, v. M. B. Louis and T. W. Brophy, Defendants, (Truman W. Brophy, Plaintiff in Error.)\nGen. No. 17,642.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 445 \u2014when indorser on promissory note Haile to holder. In an action on a promissory note against an indorser thereon by the holder, where it appears that plaintiff procured the defendant to indorse the note by paying him five hundred dollars to pay off another note past due on which defendant was liable, and defendant claims as a defense that he is an accommodation indorser, that the note was to be returned to the maker after his indorsement and that he indorsed the note for plaintiff on the understanding he was agent of the maker, a judgment fo.r plaintiff on conflicting evidence and on finding of facts involved in propositions of law held as the law of the case, was sustained.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Fbedebick L. Fake, Jb., Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nRehearing allowed October 24, 1913.\nOpinion on rehearing filed December 31, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Harry A. Biossat against M. B. Louis and T. W. Brophy to recover on a promissory note executed by M. B. Louis payable to himself and indorsed by him and T. W. Brophy. Service of process was had on T. W. Brophy alone and trial was by the court without a jury. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff against Brophy for five hundred dollars, Brophy brings error.\nPatrick H. O\u2019Donnell and D. P. Pennywitt, for plaintiff in error.\nJoseph L. McNab, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0436-01",
  "first_page_order": 460,
  "last_page_order": 461
}