{
  "id": 2885341,
  "name": "Joseph McFadden, Appellant, v. Adam Deck et al., Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "McFadden v. Deck",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,010",
  "first_page": "178",
  "last_page": "179",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 Ill. App. 178"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 2198,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30785424169517217
    },
    "sha256": "05a8f99e29d39628c63a1a6e4dd5537a8097d69b7fbf214570abd45c33737dac",
    "simhash": "1:3ad4a3549caebac4",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:10:43.610055+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph McFadden, Appellant, v. Adam Deck et al., Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William C. Mooney and C. N. Hollerich, for appellant.",
      "James E. Taylor and Prettymann, Velde & Prettymann, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph McFadden, Appellant, v. Adam Deck et al., Appellees.\nGen. No. 6,010.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Putnam county; the Hon. John M. Niehaus, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the Octoher term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 9, 1915.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 336 \u2014when copy of note filed is not part of declaration. A copy of a promissory note filed -with, a declaration is no part of the pleading.\n2. Bills and notes, \u00a7 336*\u2014when demurrer to declaration does not- reach copy of note filed. Since a copy of a promissory note filed with a declaration is no part of 'the pleading, it cannot be noticed on demurrer.\n3. Appeal and ebbor, \u00a7 420*\u2014when judgment reversed on point not raised in trial court. A judgment rendered on a copy of a promissory note filed with a declaration on demurrer to such pleading, will be reversed on appeal, since the copy of the note was no part of the declaration, notwithstanding the question was not raised in the trial court.\nStatement of the Case.\nJoseph McFadden sued Adam Deck, John Dore and James McCutcheon in assumpsit, filing a declaration consisting of the common counts and two special counts based on two promissory notes given by the defendants to the Marsh Company, and assigned to the plaintiff: Copies of the notes, which were in common form except that at the left of the defendants\u2019 signatures appeared the words \u201cCommissioners of Hennepin Drainage District,\u201d were filed with the declaration. General and special demurrers were entered to the special counts, on the ground that it did not appear whether the Marsh Company was an individual, copartnership or corporation. The general demurrer was sustained; plaintiff dismissed the common counts from his declaration, and elected to abide by the special counts, whereupon judgment was entered against him, from which he appeals.\nWilliam C. Mooney and C. N. Hollerich, for appellant.\nJames E. Taylor and Prettymann, Velde & Prettymann, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to- XT, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0178-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 201
}