{
  "id": 2846482,
  "name": "First National Bank of Princeton, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph C. Ficklin, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "First National Bank of Princeton v. Ficklin",
  "decision_date": "1914-03-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,079",
  "first_page": "381",
  "last_page": "382",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 381"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2166,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3118946316947436
    },
    "sha256": "e19404641871c974814230a97b3d295a64b979d0e304da152892699686548dd3",
    "simhash": "1:8773d865f0ae648c",
    "word_count": 365
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "First National Bank of Princeton, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph C. Ficklin, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Bills and notes, \u00a7 373 \u2014when introduction of note makes prima facie case for plaintiff. Where the execution of a note is not denied, the note when offered in evidence makes a prima facie case for plaintiff, including the fact of plaintiff\u2019s ownership, notwithstanding a stamped indorsement thereon to a third party which, under the statute, the owner was privileged to strike out.\n3. Bills and notes, \u00a7 375 \u2014proof of consideration. In a suit on a promissory note, proof of consideration is not essential to a prima facie case; want of consideration is an affirmative defense for defendant to establish.\n4. Costs, \u00a7 67 \u2014damages for prosecuting a writ of error for delay. Ten per centum of the amount of the judgment allowed as statutory damages under R. S. ch. 33, \u00a7 23, J. & A. 2737, for suing out and prosecuting a writ of error for delay, it appearing that the contentions for reversal were obviously untenable and devoid of merit.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Benjamin F. J. Odell, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Miller, Starr, Packard & Peokham, for defendant in error; Robert C. Wheeler, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "First National Bank of Princeton, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph C. Ficklin, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 19,079.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Continuance, \u00a7 50 \u2014when affidavit that defendant's attorney was engaged, insufficient ground for. Where defendant\u2019s attorney of record was absent when the case was duly called for trial, held that an affidavit presented in support of a motion for a continuance on the ground that the attorney was engaged was wholly inadequate to warrant a continuance.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 10, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the First National Bank of Princeton against Joseph C. Ficklin on a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error.\nBenjamin F. J. Odell, for plaintiff in error.\nMiller, Starr, Packard & Peokham, for defendant in error; Robert C. Wheeler, of counsel.\nSeo 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": "0381-01",
  "first_page_order": 407,
  "last_page_order": 408
}