{
  "id": 2921524,
  "name": "Nellie A. Bechtel, Executrix, Defendant in Error, v. George A. Marshall, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bechtel v. Marshall",
  "decision_date": "1917-10-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,624",
  "first_page": "329",
  "last_page": "330",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 329"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2735,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.605,
    "sha256": "21e4ea44c3146b3d9664a44d3ea00efbfdad50dce192266d75a782b56e055c7c",
    "simhash": "1:be7789ed581780a6",
    "word_count": 444
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nellie A. Bechtel, Executrix, Defendant in Error, v. George A. Marshall, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Helmer, Moulton, Whitman & Whitman, for plaintiff in error; Lloyd 0. Whitman and Boland D. Whitman, of counsel.",
      "Culver, Andrews & King, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nellie A. Bechtel, Executrix, Defendant in Error, v. George A. Marshall, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,624.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David F. Matchett, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 2, 1917.\nRehearing denied October 15, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Nellie A. Bechtel, executrix of the last will and testament of Henry H. Bechtel, deceased, plaintiff, against George A. Marshall, defendant, on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff for $24,207.24 upon a directed verdict, defendant brings error.\nHelmer, Moulton, Whitman & Whitman, for plaintiff in error; Lloyd 0. Whitman and Boland D. Whitman, of counsel.\nCulver, Andrews & King, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Bills and notes, \u00a7 420 \u2014 when documentary evidence is in-' admissible in action on note. In an action by the representative of a deceased stockholder on a note given by one stockholder to deceased in an alleged settlement among stockholders at the time of the winding up of the business of the corporation, to reimburse deceased for the portion of defendant\u2019s share of the debts of the corporation assumed by deceased, in which defendant claimed that there was an error in the statement of accounts at the time of settlement, held that writings in books and papers offered by defendant made by parties other than deceased or his representatives were inadmissible, because not binding on him, and that other writings, the authorship of which was not shown, were also inadmissible.\n2. Bills and notes, \u00a7 443* \u2014 when evidence insufficient to show failure of consideration. In an action by the representative of a deceased stockholder in a corporation on a note given by another stockholder in an alleged settlement of defendant\u2019s share of the indebtedness of the corporation assumed by deceased, evidence held insufficient to show that such note was without consideration.\n3. Bills and notes, \u00a7 440* \u2014 when evidence insufficient to show note was for accommodation purposes. In an action by the representative of a deceased stockholder in a corporation on a note given by another stockholder in an alleged settlement of defendant\u2019s share of the indebtedness of the corporation assumed by deceased, evidence held insufficient to show that such note was for accommodation purposes.\n4. Bills and notes, \u00a7 407* \u2014 when burden of proof is on defendant. The burden of proof is on defendant in an action on a promissory note to show failure of consideration.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0329-01",
  "first_page_order": 355,
  "last_page_order": 356
}