{ "id": 5120461, "name": "Parish v. Hendrickson et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Parish v. Hendrickson", "decision_date": "1893-07-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "329", "last_page": "332", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ill. App. 329" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5057928 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/43/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Wash. St. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 Ill. 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5805886 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/23/0416-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ill. 43", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5285618 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/24/0043-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ill. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5236897 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/58/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2964248 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/129/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Ill. App. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4933463 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/25/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 653", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill. App. 17", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 852734 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/10/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ill. 664", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2580568 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/13/0664-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Gilm. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilm.", "case_ids": [ 2569138 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/10/0453-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 411, "char_count": 5852, "ocr_confidence": 0.485, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.408767690195799e-08, "percentile": 0.27649372608209977 }, "sha256": "ec3c671379ca2e701bc496123a278464b30783762a4ecb4567479857a0db90a1", "simhash": "1:1b6ade918f774ede", "word_count": 1033 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Parish v. Hendrickson et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion, oe the Court,\nGary, P. J.\nThe appellant sued the appellees upon a promissory note, and failed to recover.\n\u2022 A motion is made by the appellees to strike out the bill of exceptions.\nThe trial ended February 10, 1893, the motion for a new trial was denied and judgment entered on the 18th, and an order then made that the appellant \u201c have thirty days from this day in which to prepare and file a bill of exceptions in said cause.\u201d The bill was dated, signed and filed March 14, 1893. ' - r. \u25a0\nIt is true that the statute contemplates that an exception to any act of the court should be made a part of the record simultaneously with the act excepted to, and as the appellees urge, that should, on the face of the record, appear to have been done. That is, that the bill of exceptions should appear on its face, to have been then signed. Evans v. Fisher, 5 Gilm. 453; Burst v. Wayne, 13 Ill. 664; People v. Blades, 10 Ill. App. 17; Wabash R. R. v. People, 106 Ill. 653; People v. Hawes, 25 Ill. App. 326; 129 Ill. 123.\nBut in practice such simultaneousness is impossible, Wright v. Sharp, Salkeld, 288; and the appearance of it on the face of the bill is a fiction, not essential to the validity of the bill. Brownfield v. Brownfield, 58 Ill. 152; Wallahan v. People, 40 Ill. (two cases), 102, 103; Ill. Cen. R. R. v. Palmer, 24 Ill. 43; Neece v. Haley, 23 Ill. 416.\nThe motion is therefore denied.\nOn the merits of the case the pleas set up want of consideration and fraudulent representations.\nThat there was in fact no value in that for which the note was given, is clear; but value and consideration are not synonymous.\nThe appellant and one McCormick had been for a few days partners, as real estate and loan brokers, under the name and style of Parish & McCormick.\nThe note sued upon was given to the appellant as part of the price for admitting Carl Davis Hendrickson into the firm. He and the appellant both being witnesses, testified contrary to each other as to whether the appellant falsely represented the then past business and then present condition of the firm to Hendrickson.\nMcCormick testified by deposition.\nOne question to him was, \u201c Who induced you to become a member of the firm of Parish & McCormick, and what was the condition of the firm\u2019s business at the time of your admission % \u201d\nHe answered: \u201c Any capital that was in the business I put it in. Parish had the cheek and gall. Of course Parish induced me to become a member by misrepresentation. Parish said he had property in his own name on the west side, and had control of large property for sale, over $250,000 worth, had the control \u00f3f large sums of money for loaning purposes; all of which statements were false. All the property mentioned I afterward ascertained to be in his wife\u2019s name, and less than $200 paid on it by commissions, earned through sales made for Batcheller, from whom Mrs. Parish bought the property originally.\u201d\nThe appellant moved to strike out of the answer all following the word \u201c member,\u201d and excepted to the denial of the motion.\nExceptions by the appellant Avere also taken to the admission of other parts of that deposition, as follows:\n\u201c Parish lied to Hendrickson, as he lied to me, about his business connections and properties that he OAvned and money that he controlled, and property that he alleged he controlled, either for sale or rent. * * * I never was so deceived by any man as I Avas by the plaintiff in this matter, in regard to the prop\u00e9rty of Parish, McCormick & Co.\u201d\nThe appellees hardly attempt to justify the admission of this vituperation, but contend that the result would have been the same without as with it. That was for them to. consider before putting it in. The appellant was entitled to a fair trial.\nThere was an issue of veracity between him and Hendrickson. Naturally all sympathy would be with the latter, who had received no value for the note he was sued upon. He was not entitled to corroborate his own testimony, by other testimony that was incompetent. It may be, though perhaps, not very probable, that the incompetent testimony turned the scale in his favor.\nThere is a great deal of conflict in the cases as to admitting evidence of other transactions, where fraud is charged.\nOne wishing to pursue the inquiry can make a good start from Day v. Stone, 59 Texas, 612, for, and McKay v. Russell, 3 Wash. St. 318, against the admission.\nWe justified it in Tolman v. Smith, 43 Ill. App. 562, because the appellant has opened the door for it as rebuttal.\nOn this record the general question does not arise, but if such evidence be admissible, the testimony quoted is, to a considerable extent, mere abuse, not narrative.\nThere are many other questions presented, but they are such as may not again arise if the case is tried upon only competent evidence.\nFor the error in not excluding the language quoted, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Gary, P. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Osborne Bros. & Burgett, attorneys for appellant.", "John T. Richards, William Brace and Aldrich, Payne & Deerees, attorneys for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Parish v. Hendrickson et al.\n1. Practice\u2014Bills of Exceptions.\u2014The statute contemplates that an exception to an act of the court is to be made a part of the record simultaneously with the act excepted to, and it should appear on the face of the record as having been done so; but in our practice such simultaneousness is impossible, and the appearance of it on the face of the bill is a fiction, not essential to the validity of the bill.\n2. Evidence\u2014Abuse and Vituperation Inadmissible.\u2014The admission of evidence which is merely abuse and not narrative is error.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1893.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed July 12, 1893.\nThe opinion, states the case.\nOsborne Bros. & Burgett, attorneys for appellant.\nJohn T. Richards, William Brace and Aldrich, Payne & Deerees, attorneys for appellees." }, "file_name": "0329-01", "first_page_order": 325, "last_page_order": 328 }