{
  "id": 2921376,
  "name": "Metropolitan Discount Company, Appellee, v. August Pitsch, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Metropolitan Discount Co. v. Pitsch",
  "decision_date": "1917-08-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,436",
  "first_page": "407",
  "last_page": "408",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ill. App. 407"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3168,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.572654163217837e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4024632324123916
    },
    "sha256": "b76f6d450b319bfc699ba666917b5b1703e851c206f442435daac8156f0e527e",
    "simhash": "1:6e4a51b5361f4ede",
    "word_count": 521
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:40:32.195438+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Metropolitan Discount Company, Appellee, v. August Pitsch, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Corporations, \u00a7 763 \u2014what is sufficient plea in bar to action by foreign corporation. The defense set up in a plea to an action hy a corporation based upon certain acceptances by defendant that plaintiff was one and the same as another corporation of a different name and that both were foreign corporations, and neither was licensed to do business in the State, and that plaintiff was engaged in peddling its goods in the. State without being so licensed, held, on demurrer, properly pleaded in bar, under the Foreign Corporation Statute (J. &-A. K 2526 et seq.), of such action, seeking to recover for such goods sold by plaintiff to defendant.\n5. Corporations, \u00a7 709*\u2014what constitutes doing -business within State. Peddling goods in the State by a foreign corporation constitutes \u201cdoing business\u201d within the State within the meaning of the Foreign Corporation Statute (J. & A. If 2526 et seq.).\n6. Pleading, \u00a7 26*\u2014when plea not duplicitous. A plea setting up. want of consideration for certain acceptances sued on and also that plaintiff was an unlicensed foreign corporation doing business within the State by peddling its goods therein and selling such goods to defendant for which such acceptances were given, held not bad for duplicity.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kirk & Shurtleff, for appellant.",
      "Alphon L. Anderson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Metropolitan Discount Company, Appellee, v. August Pitsch, Appellant.\nGen. No. 6,436.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 800 \u2014necessity \u00f3f showing motion for new trial in hill of exceptions. The sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict cannot he considered in the absence of a motion for a new trial shown in the abstract of the bill of exceptions or in the bill itself.\n- 2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 601*\u2014what unnecessary as basis for rcview of court\u2019s action on motion to direct a verdict. The court\u2019s action on a motion to direct a verdict, which raises only a legal question whether there is any evidence tending to sustain the verdict, is reviewable, though no motion for a new trial was made.\n3. Bills and notes, \u00a7 -460*\u2014when negligence in signing accept anees is question for jury. Evidence as to whether defendant was guilty of negligence in signing certain acceptances without ascertaining their contents, held not so clear as to warrant the court in withdrawing that question from the jury.\nAppeal from the County Court of Peoria county; the Hon. Chester F. Barnett, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed August 7, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by the Metropolitan Discount Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against August Pitsch, defendant, to recover $29.60 on each of three acceptances, negotiable instruments, in favor of the National Novelty Import Company and indorsed and assigned to plaintiff. From a judgment for plaintiff for $88.80, defend- . ant appeals.\nKirk & Shurtleff, for appellant.\nAlphon L. Anderson, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vole, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, samo topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0407-01",
  "first_page_order": 431,
  "last_page_order": 432
}