{
  "id": 5403479,
  "name": "Michele Consiglio, Defendant in Error, v. Emilio Longhi, trading as Italian & Greek Product Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Consiglio v. Longhi",
  "decision_date": "1917-05-01",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,193",
  "first_page": "441",
  "last_page": "442",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 441"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2148,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "sha256": "24966ac9047946e07889a056646f4ed566f1eb8d9996ceb0905830b59b917931",
    "simhash": "1:6b7c9ae5680b9274",
    "word_count": 367
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michele Consiglio, Defendant in Error, v. Emilio Longhi, trading as Italian & Greek Product Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown & Navigato, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Morgan & McFarland, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michele Consiglio, Defendant in Error, v. Emilio Longhi, trading as Italian & Greek Product Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,193.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed May 1, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Michele Consiglio, plaintiff, against Emilio Longhi, trading as the Italian & Greek Product Company, defendant, to recover on a demand promissory note for four hundred dollars, of which defendant was maker. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.\nBrown & Navigato, for plaintiff in error.\nMorgan & McFarland, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 87*\u2014rohen note is payable on demand. A note which expresses no time for payment is payable on demand.\n2. Bills and notes, \u00a7 420 \u2014what evidence is properly excluded in action on demand note. In an action on a promissory note payable on demand, where the defense was that the note was given for. a deposit made by the payee with the defendant, to secure the latter against loss on certain accounts of merchandise sold for defendant by the payee on credit, that such accounts were guaranteed by the payee and proved worthless, that the loss exceeded the amount of the note, that plaintiff did not become the owner of the note until long after maturity, and the offer of the defendant to prove that when the note was offered to h'im. for payment fifteen months afterwards by the plaintiff it had not been indorsed by the payee, and that he then informed plaintiff that the payee was indebted to him in excess of the amount of the note, that he would not pay it and that the indorsements on the note were made subsequent to that time, held that in view of sections 53, 58, 59 of article IV of the Negotiable Instruments Act (J. & A. 1f1f 7692,,7697, 7698), such evidence was improperly excluded.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0441-01",
  "first_page_order": 469,
  "last_page_order": 470
}