{
  "id": 2893963,
  "name": "In re Estate of Maud M. Thompson, Deceased. Archie W. Campbell and Frank E. Campbell, Appellants, v. Wilder B. Thompson, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Campbell v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1915-04-26",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,932",
  "first_page": "415",
  "last_page": "418",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 415"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "132 Ill. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5419388
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/132/0627-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. App. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5781123
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/56/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2618504
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/65/0497-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 Ill. 425",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3130155
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/160/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 Ill. 219",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        845403
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/198/0219-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 Ill. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5365943
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/107/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 Ill. 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5634058
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/231/0442-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 366,
    "char_count": 6260,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.485936629041616e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5180802046760256
    },
    "sha256": "ba91b3056c086f344f9627c5f12b434ffba7a1a0a587986e7b2ac7eda683c1a7",
    "simhash": "1:d36dedd4c831509d",
    "word_count": 1083
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re Estate of Maud M. Thompson, Deceased. Archie W. Campbell and Frank E. Campbell, Appellants, v. Wilder B. Thompson, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurelt\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe appellee, Wilder B. Thompson, filed his claim in the Prohate Court of Cook county against the estate of his deceased wife, Maud M. Thompson. The portion of the claim now before us is based upon the following instrument:\n\u201cI, Maud M. Thompson, the wife of Wilder B. Thompson, do hereby acknowledge that I am indebted to my said husband in the sum of Four Thousand ($4,000) Dollars, which sum without interest, shall be deducted from my share in my husband\u2019s estate in the event of his prior death. Should I depart this life, however, before my said husband, then the said sum of Four Thousand ($4,000) Dollars, without interest, shall be paid to him out of my estate. This instrument is, and shall be, non-negotiable. \u201cDated, at Harvey, Illinois, this fifth (5th) day of September, A. D. 1908. (Signed) MAUD M. THOMPSON.\u201d\nThis claim was allowed by the Probate Court, and from the order of allowance appeal was taken to the Circuit Court, where, upon trial without a jury, the issues were found for the claimant and his damages assessed at $4,253.28, the sum mentioned in the instrument with interest thereon, and judgment for that amount was entered.\nIt is first argued that the claimant before he can recover must prove the signature of the intestate to the instrument in question. The point is not well taken. Under section 52 of chapter 110 of the Practice Act of the Illinois Statutes (J. & A. \u00b6 8589) it is provided that no person shall be permitted to deny the execution of an instrument in writing upon which any action may be brought, unless a plea shall be filed with affidavit denying the execution; and in DeClerque v. Campbell, 231 Ill. 442, it is held that the requirement of an affidavit denying the execution of any instrument in writing in order to compel proof of the genuineness of the signature applies to a claim on a note filed in the Probate Court the same as in a suit at law on a note in any other court.\nThe second point is that the consideration must be proven by the claimant by evidence other than the instrument itself. This is not the law where the instrument itself recites an adequate consideration. As was said in McFarlane v. Williams, 107 Ill. 33: \u201cThe contract recites an adequate consideration, and the\" burden is upon appellant, if he would impeach that recital, to do so by a clear preponderance of evidence.\u201d\nIt is next said that the instrument in question is an attempted testamentary bequest, and void because not executed in conformity with the Statute of Wills. We do not think the language of the instrument can be construed as a testamentary bequest. It explicitly recites an indebtedness from the maker of the instrument to the appellee. It has been held in a number of decisions in this State that a promise to pay a certain sum of money \u201cafter death\u201d is a promise to pay at a time certain. Among the cases so holding are Neish v. Garmon, 198 Ill. 219; Shaw v. Camp, 160 Ill. 425; Goodwin v. Goodwin, 65 Ill. 497; Safford v. Graves, 56 Ill. App. 499.\nThe last point presented by appellants is that it was error to allow interest. The judgment includes interest after the maturity of the note. We hold that interest was allowable after maturity. Section 2, ch. 74, Illinois Statutes (J. & A. \u00b6 6691), entitled \u201cInterest,\u201d provides that interest shall be allowed \u201cfor all moneys after they become due on any bond, bill, promissory note, or other instrument in writing.\u201d See also Whittaker v. Crowe, Hargadine & Co., 132 Ill. 627.\nWe think the judgment of the. Circuit Court was correct, but we are not disposed to grant the motion of the appellee that he be awarded statutory damages, as we ar\u00e9 not persuaded that this appeal has been prosecuted for delay.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurelt"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frederic R. De Young, for appellants.",
      "William Slack, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re Estate of Maud M. Thompson, Deceased. Archie W. Campbell and Frank E. Campbell, Appellants, v. Wilder B. Thompson, Appellee.\nGen. No. 19,932.\n1. Pleading, \u00a7 304 \u2014when affidavit necessary to denial of execution of writing. Under section 52 of chapter 110 of the Practice Act of the Illinois Statutes (J. & A. j[ 8589), the execution of an instrument in writing upon which any action may be brought cannot be denied unless a plea shall be filed with affidavit denying the execution.\n2. Pleading, \u00a7 304*\u2014how execution of note filed as claim in Pro-hate Court must he denied. Section 52 of chapter 110 of the Practice Act (J. & A. If 8589), requiring any one denying the execution of an instrument in writing upon which any action may be brought to file a plea with affidavit denying the execution, applies to a claim on a note filed in the Probate' Court.\n3. Conteacts, \u00a7 373 \u2014when consideration need not he proved. Where the instrument sued on recites an adequate consideration, the claimant need not prove the consideration by any evidence other than the instrument itself.\n4. Wills, \u00a7 68*\u2014when instrument not void as a testamentary disposition. An instrument acknowledging an indebtedness from the maker to the payee, who was the husband of the maker, and providing for the deduction of the amount from the maker\u2019s share of the payee\u2019s estate in the event that she survived him, or the payment of same out of her estate should he survive her, provides for payment within a time certain and is not invalid as an attempted testamentary disposition.\n5. Interest, \u00a7 12*\u2014when interest allowed after maturity. Under section 2, ch. 74, of the Illinois Statutes (J. & A. \"|f 6691), entitled \u201cInterest,\u201d which provides that interest shall be allowed \u201cfor all moneys after they become due on any bond, bill, promissory note, or other instrument in writing,\u201d interest may be allowed on a non-negotiable instrument for a certain sum of money, acknowledged therein to be payable to a party therein named, after maturity.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. H. Steeling Pomeboy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 26, 1915.\nFrederic R. De Young, for appellants.\nWilliam Slack, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0415-01",
  "first_page_order": 439,
  "last_page_order": 442
}