{
  "id": 2877350,
  "name": "William J. Doyle and James A. Doyle, Defendants in Error, v. John P. Considine, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Doyle v. Considine",
  "decision_date": "1915-11-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,732",
  "first_page": "311",
  "last_page": "312",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ill. App. 311"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2666,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.376255075235289e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9191460583223192
    },
    "sha256": "da23339a33cf3f953a8e5198cd53794097dc85e3eabd00107356ae28fd9dd248",
    "simhash": "1:5355db5650e7cb48",
    "word_count": 465
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:01.145099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William J. Doyle and James A. Doyle, Defendants in Error, v. John P. Considine, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn a suit on a promissory note, plaintiffs had judgment for $696.76, which defendant says should be reversed because (1) the suit can only be brought in the name of E. H. Bauch, the original payee, and (2) as the note contains a reference to a \u201cland contract\u201d it is not a negotiable instrument; and also it was error not to permit defendant to show what was done under this contract.\nAs to the first point, the note was indorsed by Bauch and plaintiffs received it in due course before maturity for value; hence they properly could bring suit.\nAs to the second point, the note says: \u201cThis note is given in accordance with a land contract of even date herewith between E. H. Bauch and J. P. Considine.\u201d By the Negotiable Instruments Act, ch. 98, sec. 21 (J. & A. \u00b6 7642), it is provided that a \u201cpromise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this act, though coupled with * * * a statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument.\u201d That is this case, and the instrument is negotiable, and an inquiry into the contract was incompetent. The judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. S. O\u2019Meara, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Thomas B. Lantry, for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William J. Doyle and James A. Doyle, Defendants in Error, v. John P. Considine, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,732.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 334 \u2014when indorsee may sue in own name. A suit may be brought in his own name on a promissory note by an indorsee who received it in due course, for value and before maturity.\n2. Bills and notes, \u00a7 118 \u2014when reference to collateral agreement does not affect negotiability. A promissory note containing the statement, \u201cThis note is given in accordance with a land contract of even date between B and C,\u201d is negotiable within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Hurd\u2019s Rev. St., ch. 98, sec. 21, J. & A. \u00b6 7642), which provides that a \u201cpromise to pay is unconditional within the meaning of this act though coupled with * * a statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument,\u201d and an action may be maintained thereon by any holder in due course.\n3. Bills and notes, \u00a7 431 \u2014when evidence of collateral agreement inadmissible. If a note be negotiable, evidence of the contract which gave rise to the note is incompetent although a reference be made thereto in the body of the instrument.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Rafferty, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 15, 1915.\nC. S. O\u2019Meara, for plaintiff in error.\nThomas B. Lantry, for defendants in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0311-01",
  "first_page_order": 337,
  "last_page_order": 338
}