{
  "id": 5412411,
  "name": "American Hard Rubber Company, Defendant in Error, v. Thad H. Howe, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "American Hard Rubber Co. v. Howe",
  "decision_date": "1917-02-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,776",
  "first_page": "353",
  "last_page": "355",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 353"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 4125,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "sha256": "e7234d261890c741909cfecab850d75f7c5c2ed0d1e2481ea92d56bc0937084c",
    "simhash": "1:4a52cb2cbbafb4e9",
    "word_count": 694
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "American Hard Rubber Company, Defendant in Error, v. Thad H. Howe, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harry A. Biossat, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Elbert C. Ferguson, for defendant in error; Edward L. England, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "American Hard Rubber Company, Defendant in Error, v. Thad H. Howe, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,776.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 7, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction on a contract of guaranty by American Hard Rubber Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Thad H. Howe, defendant, to recover $2,000 and interest thereon and $10.50 court costs. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,000, defendant brings error.\nThe statement of claim alleged a debt due to plaintiff from the Swiss American Yaporator Company of $2,000 balance for merchandise sold and delivered \u201cto the defendant\u201d; that the defendant guaranteed payment for such merchandise, that an action for that amount was brought against that company and, on admission of $1,040 due, judgment was entered for such amount, on which execution issued' and was returned \u201cno part satisfied\u201d; that that company was insolvent and delay in reducing the balance of the $2,000 claimed to be due to plaintiff from that company which was disputed would endanger plaintiff\u2019s claim against the defendant. Defendant\u2019s affidavit of merits was as follows:\n\u201cThat said plaintiff did not furnish and deliver the goods, wares and merchandise mentioned in said order and guarantees; that there was no balance of $2,000 due on December 3, 1914; that Swiss American Yaporator Company has paid $100 on account of said judgment of $1,040 mentioned in said statement of claim; that defendant is not liable for costs and interest on said claim; that plaintiff on, to wit, March, 1915, in consideration of A. H. Freeman agreeing to pay $100 on said judgment and $100 each and every week thereafter until same was paid, agreed to extend the time of payment of plaintiff\u2019s claim so that same should be paid $100 cash on, to wit, March 1,1915, and $100 each and every week thereafter, and that A. H. Freeman paid said plaintiff $100 on account of said agreement and agreed to pay plaintiff $100 each and every week thereafter. \u2019 \u2019\nThis affidavit of merits was stricken from the files, and defendant ordered to file an amended affidavit in five days. He elected to stand by this affidavit, and was defaulted and judgment entered.\nHarry A. Biossat, for plaintiff in error.\nElbert C. Ferguson, for defendant in error; Edward L. England, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13 \u2014what constitutes a clerical error in a statement of claim. Where a statement of claim against a guarantor of payment for goods sold to a corporation set up that the goods were delivered \u201cto the defendant\u201d and that suit had been brought against the corporation for the debt, held that the words \u201cto the defendant\u201d were a clerical error and were shown by the entire statement to have referred to the corporation.\n2. Pleading, \u00a7 267 \u2014when clerical error may he corrected. Where the context in a pleading affords the means of correction of a clerical error, the proper word will be deemed substituted.\n3. Guaranty, \u00a7 21 \u2014when guarantor is discharged. Where an extension of time is given the principal for the payment of money due by him by a valid and binding agreement without his guarantor\u2019s consent, the latter is discharged.\n4. Pleading, \u00a7 153 \u2014when affidavit of merits filed hy guarantor in action on guaranty is fatally defective. An affidavit of merits filed by the guarantor of a debt when sued upon his guaranty which seeks to set up an extension of the time of payment as a defense is fatally defective in not alleging that such extension was without his consent.\n5. Pleading, \u00a7 153 \u2014when affidavit of merits may he declared insufficient in its entirety. A court is not called upon to point out the particular parts of an affidavit of merits which are insufficient, and is warranted in holding it insufficient in its entirety.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number;"
  },
  "file_name": "0353-01",
  "first_page_order": 377,
  "last_page_order": 379
}