{
  "id": 2418467,
  "name": "Dexter A. Smith v. John Munch",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Munch",
  "decision_date": "1886-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "323",
  "last_page": "325",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 Ill. App. 323"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5296449
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/46/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Gilm. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2559310
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/7/0461-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2586650
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/14/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ill. 193",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        826356
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/89/0193-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Gilm. 233",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2463162
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/8/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 4481,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.346483906976816
    },
    "sha256": "0f7bfce7fa2017e7d9c9d8d981c5f5719a33e3a8b0dcac6693a7077088922a18",
    "simhash": "1:21b5f453028034a3",
    "word_count": 804
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:21.717522+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dexter A. Smith v. John Munch."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pleasants, P. J.\nThe abstract in this case hardly complies with the rule and the transcript is not what it should be.\nIt is a suit in assumpsit by appellant, as assignee, against appellee as maker of a note, in special form and printed, to D. M. Osborne & Co. for $100, dated August 1, 1882, and payable on or before January 1, 1884, at the Merchants\u2019 & Farmers\u2019 Bank in Lovington, Illinois. It embraced a certifi- \u201c cate by the maker, \u201c for the purpose of obtaining the property for which it was given,\u201d that he owned in his own name - acres of land in section -, township-, etc., and $1,500 worth of personal property on it over and above all his indebtedness. Under the signature was written : \u201c This machine to be put in running order by the harvest of 1883, when starting in 100 Oct. 1st, \u201983.\u201d Appellee says it also 'shows on its face, in the lower left hand corner, the following : \u201c [number on the machine \u2014 9]\u201d; and at the bottom, on margin, the printed words: \u201c Other notes in payment for same machine given to D. M. Osborne & Go.\u201d; but if there the transcript of the record omits them.\nIt was stipulated that any defense which could be well pleaded might be given in evidence under the general issue filed. A verdict was returned for the defendant, a motion for a new trial denied and judgment entered. \u00ab\nThe bill of exceptions \"shows that plaintiff offered in evidence \u00a3\u00a3 the note sued, also the writing on the margin,\u201d which were admitted, and he then rested; but the assignment indorsed is also copied in the transcript, together with the other matter above mentioned.\nAssuming that it was all treated as in evidence, the only-material question in the case is upon the propriety of the court\u2019s ruling in.admitting proof of the failure of the consideration or conditions on which the note was given, notwithstanding it appeared that plaintiff was in possession of it before maturity.\nIt was proper if he had actual notice of these facts or was fairly put upon inquiry in relation to them before he got it.\nWhether he was so notified or put upon inquiry was a question of fact for the jury; and all the matter appearing on its face \u2014 since it had been under the control of the payee and plaintiff from the time of its execution \u2014 was admissible, in connection with other facts in evidence, as tending to prove it. Henneberry v. Morse, 56 Ill. 395; Russell v. Haddock, 3 Gilm. 233. It was further proved that after maturity, in the spring of 1884, it was in the hands of the general agent of D. M. Osborne & Co., with plaintiff\u2019s approval, and that this agent demanded payment for them of appellee.\nThe jury found that appellant was not a bona fide assignee for value and without notice of the defense as against his assignors, and we are unwilling to say they were not justified by the evidence.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pleasants, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Cochran & Harbaugh, for appellant.",
      "Mr. W. H. Shinn, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dexter A. Smith v. John Munch.\nAction on Note \u2014 Assignment\u2014Notice of Defense \u2014 Failure of Consideration \u2014 Admissibility of Evidence \u2014 Practice\u2014Defective Transcript and Abstract.\nIn an action on a note on the face of which certain matter appeared, it is held: That evidence of a failure of consideration was admissible if the holder had notice, or was fairly put upon inquiry; that this was a question for the jury; that the matter on the face of the note was admissible in connection with other facts to prove such notice; and that this court can not interfere with the verdict of the jury finding that the holder was not a bona fide assignee.\n[Opinion filed November 20, 1886.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Moultrie County; the Hon. J. F. Hughes, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Cochran & Harbaugh, for appellant.\nWhere a promissory note is indorsed by the payee without date, it will be presumed, in the absence of proof, that it was assigned at the date of the execution of the note. Smith v. Nevlin, 89 Ill. 193.\nIf the time of the assignment of a note becomes material, it is incumbent on the maker to show that it was made after the maturity of the instrument where the indorsement is without date. Mobley v. Ryan, 14 Ill. 51.\nThe writing below the signature and marginal line of said note is no part of it. There is no evidence that it was there when the note was signed, or that any one authorized to do so caused it to be written there. It certainly could not be construed so as to make it appear to one purchasing the note as notice of a defense to the note. Owen v. Barnnm, 2 Gilm. 461; Carr v. Welsh, 46 Ill. 88.\nMr. W. H. Shinn, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0323-01",
  "first_page_order": 319,
  "last_page_order": 321
}