{
  "id": 2908105,
  "name": "D. Schnitzer, Appellee, v. John Kramer and Maggie Kramer, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Schnitzer v. Kramer",
  "decision_date": "1914-10-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,949",
  "first_page": "350",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 350"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. App. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5008226
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/35/0195-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 215,
    "char_count": 3188,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.558,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3273679276282131
    },
    "sha256": "150362b3392a6f7bf157359cf903f10dc8ccc62e133f4a4521b4ad401b51fa7a",
    "simhash": "1:265f7de6501b94c9",
    "word_count": 553
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "D. Schnitzer, Appellee, v. John Kramer and Maggie Kramer, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendants gave plaintiff their judgment notes, but in the power of attorney authorizing any attorney of a court of record to confess judgment the amount of the attorney\u2019s fees to be allowed was not written in the blank space provided for that purpose. Some of the notes were for two hundred and fifty dollars and others for one hundred and fifty dollars each, and plaintiff after receiving them wrote in the blank space of the two hundred and fifty dollar notes the amount of twenty-five dollars as attorney\u2019s fees, and in the space in the one hundred and fifty dollar notes, the amount of fifteen dollars as-the attorney\u2019s fee. Judgment was entered on these notes for the amount of the principal due and also the attorney\u2019s fees which had been written in as described.\nDefendants claim that this supplying of the amount of attorney\u2019s fees constituted a material alteration of the notes which was fatal to their validity. We do not agree with this contention. Filling in the blank spaces was not altering the notes but rather supplying a manifest omission. The general rule is that such additions or insertions when made in conformity with the apparent character and object of the blank are proper and binding upon the maker of the instrument. See Tiedemann on Commercial Paper, sec. 283; 1 Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, sec. 142; Parsons on Notes and Bills, 33. See also the opinion in White v. Alward, 35 Ill. App. 195, in which case this identical question was involved and in which the Court said, in substance, that even if an excessive amount of attorney\u2019s fees had been put in it was not an alteration of the note; the authority to supply the omission existed, even if it had been exceeded, and that at most the excess amount was void. There is no question before us as to the reasonableness of the attorney\u2019s fees in this case.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas W. Reilly, for appellants.",
      "Sonnenschein, Berkson & Fishell, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "D. Schnitzer, Appellee, v. John Kramer and Maggie Kramer, Appellants.\nGen. No. 19,949.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 24 \u2014right of payee to fill in blank for attorney\u2019s fees. Where the amount of attorney\u2019s fees in a judgment note was not written in the blank space provided for that purpose, the authority to fill in the blank for a sum not excessive in amount exists in the payee of the note.\n2. Alteration of instruments, \u00a7 18 \u2014effect of filling in blank left for attorney\u2019s fees. The filling in a blank space left for attorney\u2019s fees in a judgment note is not a material alteration.going to the validity of the instrument, but is supplying a manifest omission.\n3. Bills and notes, \u00a7 24 \u2014when blank in note may he filled in. Where additions or insertions are made in conformity with the apparent character and object of a blank in a note, they are proper and binding upon the maker of the instrument.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John A. Dowdall, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 13, 1914.\nThomas W. Reilly, for appellants.\nSonnenschein, Berkson & Fishell, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0350-01",
  "first_page_order": 376,
  "last_page_order": 377
}
