{
  "id": 5016711,
  "name": "Barbara Magers v. J. A. Dunlap",
  "name_abbreviation": "Magers v. Dunlap",
  "decision_date": "1891-06-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "618",
  "last_page": "620",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. App. 618"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "30 Miss. 110",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Miss.",
      "case_ids": [
        11260041
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/miss/30/0110-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. App. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        867408
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/17/0196-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 3837,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.258025790735345e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38621711149955074
    },
    "sha256": "cd1ab0a0723535fc8bc237423fe0cbbbff258cb667b378c39a772fb673e1b4f9",
    "simhash": "1:e104b018c8cf7457",
    "word_count": 676
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:45:34.976789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Barbara Magers v. J. A. Dunlap."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pleasants, J.\nThis was on a snit on a promissory note made by appellant to appellee, commenced before a justice of the peace and appealed to the County Court, where a verdiewas returned and judgment thereon rendered for plaintiff.\nThe note offered in evidence purported to he \u201c for labor.\u201d Defendant claimed that these words were added to it after delivery, without her consent, and therefore on oath denied its execution. It appeared that plaintiff was a physician and the note given for professional services. He testified that there had been no alteration and was corroborated. She contradicted, and was also corroborated. It was for the jury to find' the fact. The court refused the instructions asked by defendant relating to the effect of the alteration alleged.\nAssuming it was made as she stated, yet if it in no manner changed the rights or interests, duties or obligations of either of the parties, it had no effect. Vogel v. Ripper, 34 Ill. 106. It is said the object of it was to deprive this widow of the benefit of the fourth section of the exemption act. We think the words \u201cfor labor,\u201d do not import that the consideration was \u201c wages \u201d due the payee \u201c as laborer or servant.\u201d \u201c Laborer \u201d or \u201c servant,\u201d as nsed in the statute, is a designation of a class of persons. Epps v. Epps, 17 Ill. App. 196. The term \u201c labor \u201d furnishes no such indication. Labor may be as well performed without \u201c wages \u201d as for them, and by one class as well as another. In this ease the evidence makes it clear that the plaintiff was not a \u201c laborer or servant \u201d and the note was not for \u201cwages,\u201d in the statutory sense. Hence there was no ground for the judgment of the justice, if it was intended to obviate the effect of the exemption act. But his judgment is not here under review. The trial on appeal was de novo and the judgment of the County Court was just what it would or should have been if these words had not been in the notes. Ho right of the defendant has been or can be affected by them. Being thus immaterial, the motive or purpose of plaintiff in adding them, if he did add them, could not properly be inquired into. Vogel v. Ripper, supra; Moie v. Herndon, 30 Miss. 110.\nAppellant was asked by her counsel how many professional visits she received from appellee, and others of the same character, which the court excluded. The object was to prove a partial failure of consideration, but the proposed evidence had no tendency to prove it. If she received all she was promised for the note, or understandingly gave it for what she did receive, then whether it was worth much or little in the estimation of the jury\u2014five dollars or seventy-five\u2014 there was. no failure of consideration. The rulings complained of were right, and the judgment will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pleasants, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. R. M. Peadro, for appellant.",
      "Mr. John R. Eden, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Barbara Magers v. J. A. Dunlap.\nNegotiab le In strum ents \u2014 Note \u2014A Iteration\u2014 Exemptions\u2014Eviden ee\u2014 Consideration\u25a0\u25a0\n1. The alteration of a promissory note after delivery which in no manner changes the rights or interests, duties or obligations of the parties thereto, has no effect.\n2. The words, \u201c for labor \u201d in the note in suit, do not import that the consideration was \u201cwages \u201d due the payee \u201cas laborer or servant,\u201d within the meaning of the exemption act. \u201cLaborer,\u201d or \u201cservant,\u201d as used in the statute, is a designation of a class of persons.\n8. In an action brought upon a note given in payment for the professional visits of a physician, the defendant should not be allowed to state the number of visits made, in order to show a partial failure of consideration, she having received all that was promised for the note or gave it for what she received.\n[Opinion filed June 12, 1891.]\nAppeal from the County Court of Moultrie County; the Hon. C. N. Twadell, Judge, presiding.\nMr. R. M. Peadro, for appellant.\nMr. John R. Eden, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0618-01",
  "first_page_order": 614,
  "last_page_order": 616
}