{
  "id": 2965235,
  "name": "Pioneer Stock Powder Company, Appellant, v. Charles Washburn, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pioneer Stock Powder Co. v. Washburn",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "361",
  "last_page": "362",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 361"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 3055,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "sha256": "af5803507d3f285e6a2c4d36e6c526ae92887c06c193ffb3bf24cbc431ca4e7c",
    "simhash": "1:67b95faebf2f8594",
    "word_count": 516
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pioneer Stock Powder Company, Appellant, v. Charles Washburn, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Bills and notes, \u00a7 421*\u2014when evidence as to other signatures inadmissible. Where the genuineness of a signature to a promissory note sued upon was in issue, held that an objection to proof that conceded genuine signatures of the maker were different from the signature to the oath attached to the defendant\u2019s plea was properly sustained as immaterial and incompetent.\n4. Bills and notes, \u00a7 408*\u2014when burden of proof on plaintiff. In an action on a promissory note, the burden of proof of the genuineness of the maker\u2019s signatures held to be on the plaintiff.\n5. Bills and notes, \u00a7 460*\u2014when genuineness of signature question for jury. In an action on a promissory note, the question of the genuineness of the signatures of the maker held for the jury.\n6. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1514*\u2014when remark of counsel harmless error. A remark by counsel to the jury that when a client goes to his lawyer he tells him the truth, held not reversible error.\n7. Appeal and error, \u00a7 523*\u2014what objections to instructions insufficient to preserve question for review. General objections to the giving and refusal of instructions are not sufficient to preserve the question of the correctness of such rulings thereon for review.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sterling & Whitmore and Murray & Morrissey, for appellant.",
      "Herrick & Herrick and De Mange, Gillespie & De Mange, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pioneer Stock Powder Company, Appellant, v. Charles Washburn, Appellee.\n(Wot to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Trial, \u00a7 74 \u2014when evidence properly admitted out of order. In an action on a promissory note, admission of evidence of a, conversation between the defendant and one claimed by him to have been the agent of the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the note, on the promise of the defendant to show that an agency existed, held not error where, though the defendant introduced no such evidence, the evidence introduced by the plaintiif tended to show the existence of the agency so as to make the question one of fact for the jury.\n2. Bills and notes, \u00a7 421*\u2014when evidence as to other signatures inadmissible. In an action on a promissory note, an objection to a question asked a witness, who had testified as to the dissimilarity of the signature on the note to that of admitted genuine signatures of the maker in his possession, as to whether he had any signatures anything like the signature to the plea, held properly sustained as calling for matters immaterial to the issue.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. Colostin D. Myers, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 21, 1916.\nRehearing denied June 30, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Pioneer Stock Powder Company, plaintiff, against Charles Washburn, defendant, on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.\nSterling & Whitmore and Murray & Morrissey, for appellant.\nHerrick & Herrick and De Mange, Gillespie & De Mange, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vote, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number,"
  },
  "file_name": "0361-01",
  "first_page_order": 403,
  "last_page_order": 404
}