{
  "id": 5023878,
  "name": "Spencer A. Brown et al. v. Joseph A. Griffin",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Griffin",
  "decision_date": "1891-05-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "558",
  "last_page": "560",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 558"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "27 N. E. Rep. 11",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 Ill, 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2672528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/81/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2469923
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/4/0005-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Wend. 639",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wend.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ill. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2654505
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/84/0161-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3241,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.595,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36533732275511044
    },
    "sha256": "998c44f607ef3707b353c982c58d89a9a5df56d00d2a2f928d9e7f67f402a8bf",
    "simhash": "1:b6a391652eec671c",
    "word_count": 563
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:04.940945+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Spencer A. Brown et al. v. Joseph A. Griffin."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gary, J.\nThe appellee sued the appellants in assumpsit, declaring upon a bill of exchange drawn by Foss, Strong & Co., to the order of the Continental National Bank, accepted by the appellants and indorsed by the bank to the appellee.\nThe bill of exceptions shows that the appellee offered \u201c the draft\u201d in evidence; that the appellants objected and excepted to the overruling of the objection; and a witness proved a computation of the amount due upon it. A witness for the appellants testified that \u201cthis draft\u201d was indorsed to the appellee only for coll\u00e9ction; and on cross-examination the same witness testified that the bank discounted it before maturity.\nOn these facts the right of the appellee to recover would seem clear enough, for if the bank was entitled to collect, its indorsee for collection can sue in his own name. Caldwell v. Lawrence, 84 Ill. 161; Gage v. Kendall, 16 Wend. 639.\nIndeed, the appellants make no question upon this point. But they say their bill of exceptions does not show that the bill was put in evidence. The bill of exceptions does not show that it contains all the evidence put in on the trial, but the words are \u201c all the evidence adduced.\u201d\nThe synonyms of \u201cadduced\u201d as given by Webster, are: offer, present, allege, advance, cite, name, mention, quote.\nAs the bill of exceptions shows that the appellee did \u201coffer in evidence the draft,\u201d and as the bill of exceptions \u201cis to be esteemed as a pleading of the party alleging the exception,\u201d and \u201cto be construed most strongly against\u201d him (Rogers v. Hall, 3 Scam. 5), and as in the absence of anything showing to the contrary, the action of the trial court is presumed to have been correct, it will be presumed that the draft \u201c adduced \u201d by the appellee, and not shown by the bill of exceptions, wag the bill of exchange described in the declaration, and that it was read to the jury. Protection L. Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 81 Ill, 88 ; Garrity v. Hamburger Co., 27 N. E. Rep. 11.\nThe alleged error in the refusal of the court below to instruct the jury upon the hypothesis that Foss, Strong & Co. might be the owners of the draft, and that as between them and the appellants there might not have been any consideration, of neither branch of which hypothesis was there a scintilla of evidence, may be dismissed from our consideration.\nIn justice this judgment ought to be affirmed with damages under Sec. 23, Chap. 33, R. S., title, Costs.\nSuch damages have not been asked for, and the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gary, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Smith, Helmer & Moulton, for appellants.",
      "Messrs. Campbell & Custer, for appellee.,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Spencer A. Brown et al. v. Joseph A. Griffin.\nNegotiable Instruments\u2014Bills of Exchange\u2014Evidence\u2014Parties\u2014Practice.\n1. A bank being entitled to collect a bill of exchange drawn to its order and duly accepted by persons named, its indorsee for collection may sue in his own name.\n2. In the case presented, this court holds, in view of the evidence, that the draft \u201cadduced \u201d by the plaintiff, and not shown by the bill of exceptions, was the bill of exchange described in the declaration, and that it was read to the jury.\n[Opinion filed May 5, 1891.]\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Egbert Jamieson, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Smith, Helmer & Moulton, for appellants.\nMessrs. Campbell & Custer, for appellee.,"
  },
  "file_name": "0558-01",
  "first_page_order": 554,
  "last_page_order": 556
}