{
  "id": 5018171,
  "name": "William H. Ward v. William Redden",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ward v. Redden",
  "decision_date": "1891-06-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "643",
  "last_page": "644",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. App. 643"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 Ill. App. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4771542
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/4/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ill. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2681483
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/80/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2633853
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/69/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1399,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5221047636367989
    },
    "sha256": "1cc4449632d3b3fc22b00c81675667507e0bcf547538e05399fa4f965bc308f4",
    "simhash": "1:20769e22b235e4dc",
    "word_count": 243
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:45:34.976789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William H. Ward v. William Redden."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wall, J.\nThis was an action of assumpsit to recover a sum of money paid by plaintiff as surety on a promissory note for defendant.\nThe statute of limitations, five years, was interposed as a defense, to which the plaintiff replied that the defendant had promised anew within five years.\nThe verdict was for the plaintiff for $160, and judgment was rendered accordingly.\nWe have carefully examined the evidence and are of opinion that it wholly fails to establish a new promise. Applying the rule as laid down in this State, we think the judgment should have been for defendant. Keener v. Crull, 19 Ill. 191; Carroll v. Forsyth, 69 Ill. 127; Wachter v. Albee, 80 Ill. 47; Haywood v. Gunn, 4 Ill. App. 161.\n_The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wall, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. W. S. Everhart, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Mr. Peter A. Brady, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William H. Ward v. William Redden.\nPrincipal and Surety\u2014Action to Recover Amount Paid by Surety\u2014 Limitations\u2014New Promise.\nIn an action brought to recover a sum of money paid by plaintiff as surety upon a promissory note for defendant, this court holds that the evidence fails to establish a new promise, the defense being the statute of limitations, and that the judgment for the plaintiff can not stand.\n[Opinion filed June 12, 1891.]\nIn error to the Circuit Court of Cumberland County; the Hon. W. C. Jones, Judge, presiding.\nMr. W. S. Everhart, for plaintiff in error.\nMr. Peter A. Brady, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0643-01",
  "first_page_order": 639,
  "last_page_order": 640
}