{
  "id": 2968012,
  "name": "Frank Walker, Administrator, Defendant in Error, v. E. C. Schertz, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walker v. Schertz",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "225",
  "last_page": "226",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 225"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2254,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "sha256": "838de05f6280dca43fa3e8b440585cf882492063dad7c930732147b1b1f6f279",
    "simhash": "1:c1178c989a8a924c",
    "word_count": 386
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank Walker, Administrator, Defendant in Error, v. E. C. Schertz, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Graves\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Graves"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John T. Elliff and Prettyman, Velde & Prettyman, for plaintiff in error.",
      "T. N. Smith and Curran & Dempsey, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank Walker, Administrator, Defendant in Error, v. E. C. Schertz, Plaintiff in Error.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Circuit Court of Tazewell county; the Hon. John M. Niehaus, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed with a finding of fact.\nOpinion filed April 21, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Frank Walker, administrator of the estate of Anna A. Walker, deceased, plaintiff, against E. C. Schertz and Mrs. E. C. Schertz, defendants, on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant E. C. Schertz brings error.\nThe plaintiff held a note of. the defendant on which the defendant claimed a certain payment had been made which was not credited thereon. The parties agreed that plaintiff should give defendant credit on the note for such payment in controversy and that defendant should pay the balance due on the note. The defendant sent plaintiff a check inclosed in a letter, which plainly informed plaintiff that according.to defendant\u2019s understanding, the check was in full for the balance due on the note. Plaintiff accepted this check, cashed it, and indorsed the amount of it on the back of the note as so much paid. Later his attorney wrote to defendant that there was still due a certain amount on the note, and that if he did not pay that amount he would be sued, and that if he was sued the-amount to be credited would not be allowed. He did not pay it, and plaintiff began suit.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Accord and satisfaction, \u00a7 4 \u2014what constitutes. The acceptance and cashing of a check by a creditor sent him by the debtor with a statement that, according to his understanding, it covered the balance due on a certain note in accordance with a compromise between the parties, held to amount to an accord and satisfaction.\n2. Executors and administrators, \u00a7 85*\u2014when compromise of debt by administrator valid. A compromise by an administrator of a debt due the estate, held valid.\nJohn T. Elliff and Prettyman, Velde & Prettyman, for plaintiff in error.\nT. N. Smith and Curran & Dempsey, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0225-01",
  "first_page_order": 267,
  "last_page_order": 268
}