{
  "id": 2912949,
  "name": "Harry S. Stewart, Plaintiff in Error, v. Emily H. Junkin, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stewart v. Junkin",
  "decision_date": "1917-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,668",
  "first_page": "186",
  "last_page": "186",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 186"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1753,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "sha256": "642b242666f7c0e2ca1a156da85205d4b59f781206a4d6e48ae2c9c09b68ab51",
    "simhash": "1:491ed214d0ddacfc",
    "word_count": 282
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harry S. Stewart, Plaintiff in Error, v. Emily H. Junkin, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McDonald\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McDonald"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles Hudson, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ryan, Condon & Livingston, for defendant in error; Jaimes Gr. Condon and Irvin I. Livingston, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harry S. Stewart, Plaintiff in Error, v. Emily H. Junkin, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 22,668. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13a \u2014when admission of evidence of payment is inadmissible under pleadings. The admission of evidence of payment of a promissory note sued on in the Municipal Court of Chicago, was reversible error where the only defenses set up in defendant\u2019s affidavit of defense were nondelivery of the note, no consideration therefor, and an understanding that it was not to become a binding obligation, notwithstanding the affidavit contained a general denial of liability also.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014when general denial in affidavit of merits is mere conclusion. Where an affidavit of merits in an action in the Municipal Court of Chicago set up certain specific defenses and contained also a general denial of liability, held-that such denial was in fact a mere conclusion based upon such defenses.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. James C. Martin, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term\", 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1917.\nRehearing denied January 2, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Harry S. Stewart, plaintiff, against Emily H. Junkin, defendant, to recover on a promissory note for $10,000, with interest. From a judgment for defendant for costs, plaintiff brings error.\nCharles Hudson, for plaintiff in error.\nRyan, Condon & Livingston, for defendant in error; Jaimes Gr. Condon and Irvin I. Livingston, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0186-01",
  "first_page_order": 214,
  "last_page_order": 214
}