{
  "id": 5020745,
  "name": "The Atkinson Car Spring Works v. O. M. Barber",
  "name_abbreviation": "Atkinson Car Spring Works v. Barber",
  "decision_date": "1891-03-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "348",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 348"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2042,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "sha256": "e387c09d99f770100bae425664e7c7c966541c47b91dc8159a06eea21b525c32",
    "simhash": "1:2f89b7fb7c92b766",
    "word_count": 352
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:04.940945+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Atkinson Car Spring Works v. O. M. Barber."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gary, J.\nThis is a suit upon a promissory note made hv the appellants to one Holbrook, and by him assigned to the' appellee.\nThe appellants pleaded that the note was given as part of the price of a warranted machine ; that the appellee was one of the vendors and warrantors; that the warranty was broken, and the appellee knew before and at the time that the note was assigned to him that the consideration had failed.\nOn the trial, without a jury, the appellants put their president on the stand and asked: Look at this paper and state what that note was given for; \u201d and the court asked: \u201cWhat do you say you will prove ? \u201d\nThe appellants\u2019 counsel thereupon made a long statement of what he proposed to prove; the appellee objected; the objection was sustained, and the appellants excepted.\nIf they had stopped there, there might have been trouble with the case; but they went on questioning the witness as\" to the consideration of the note, the warranty and quality of the machine, and the other matter mentioned in their offer.\nWhile the appellee objected to the questions, the court permitted them all to be answered, so that it appeal's that in fact the appellants did put in all the evidence they had to offer.\nThe court found for the appellee, and it is enough to say that the evidence did not make out any defense.\nUnder such circumstances it would be like holding a moot court to inquire whether the objection to the offer was rightly or wrongly sustained.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gary, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. G. W. & J. T. Kretzinger, for appellants.",
      "Messrs. Millar, Starr & Leman, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Atkinson Car Spring Works v. O. M. Barber.\nNegotiable Instruments\u2014Note\u2014Consideration\u2014Failure of\u2014Warranty.\nIn an action brought by the indorsee of a promissory note to recover thereon, this court holds that the evidence introduced by the defendants made no defense thereto, and declines to interfere with the judgment for he plaintiff.\n[Opinion filed March 13, 1891.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the lion. E. W. Clifford, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. G. W. & J. T. Kretzinger, for appellants.\nMessrs. Millar, Starr & Leman, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0348-01",
  "first_page_order": 344,
  "last_page_order": 345
}
