{
  "id": 2861601,
  "name": "Snitzler Advertising Company, Defendant in Error, v. Louis T. Orr, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Snitzler Advertising Co. v. Orr",
  "decision_date": "1916-02-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,483",
  "first_page": "98",
  "last_page": "99",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 98"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 3282,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "sha256": "4da4670ac44168ac2e020f84175ae8accd9ee809a858028c7d5ac84b9484c4a1",
    "simhash": "1:c93568b5304ff0a9",
    "word_count": 539
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Snitzler Advertising Company, Defendant in Error, v. Louis T. Orr, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cavender, Kaiser & Wermuth and W. S. Hodges, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Page & Page, for defendant in error; Cecil Page, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Snitzler Advertising Company, Defendant in Error, v. Louis T. Orr, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 20,483.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rufus F. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 16, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Snitzler Advertising Company, plaintiff, against Louis T. Orr, defendant, for money due on account of an advertising contract. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nDefendant was an attorney and organized the Hot Springs Medical Institute and the Orpheum Dental Parlors. He owned one share of stock in each corporation. Plaintiff offered in evidence a note of J. L. Donahue for $848.25, dated September 10, 1912, payable three months after date to the order of the plaintiff, with interest at. six per cent, per annum, and also the following document:\n\u201cChicago, May 29, 1912.\n\u201cSnitzler Advertising Company,\nChicago, Ill.\n\u2018 \u2018 Gentlemen :\u2014\nYou are hereby authorized to insert advertising for the Hot Springs Medical Institute and Orpheum Dental Parlors for the month of June, which shall not in any event exceed the sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) for which we agree to be responsible.\n\u201cYours respectfully,\n(Signed) J. L. Donahue.\n(Signed) Louis T. Orr.\u201d\nUnderneath this -appeared the following notation:\n\u201cThis applies to note of J. L. Donahue for sum of Bight Hundred Forty-eight and 25/100 Dollars (Due Dec. 10th, 1912), taken in payment of balance due on account to date Aug. 26th, 1912.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Guaranty, \u00a7 3 \u2014when signed notation on order for advertising constitutes guaranty of note. Where a- stockholder in two institutions, together with another person, signs a written order for advertising for such institutions for a specified amount and such stockholder subsequently and individually signs a notation thereon that \u201cthis applies to note\u201d of the, other signer of the order taken in payment of balance due on account up to a specified date after the giving of the order, such notation constitutes an express agreement to he responsible as guarantor for the payment of the note.\n2. Interest, \u00a7 5*\u2014when allowed on account stated. Interest is allowed where an action is brought on an account stated.\n3. Payment, \u00a7 6*\u2014when giving of note does not constitute. Payment of an obligation is not made by the giving of a note of one jointly liable for such obligation unless the note itself is paid.\n4. Guaranty, \u00a7 9*\u2014how contract of guaranty should he construed. Agreements to become responsible for the amount of an advertising contract and the promissory note of another, should he construed as favorably to the creditor thereon as any other written contracts, even though such agreements be regarded as a guaranty.\n(Signed) Louis T. Orr.\u201d\nThe defendant testified that this notation was in his own handwriting, and made by him at the time the note referred to was signed and delivered.\nCavender, Kaiser & Wermuth and W. S. Hodges, for plaintiff in error.\nPage & Page, for defendant in error; Cecil Page, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0098-01",
  "first_page_order": 122,
  "last_page_order": 123
}