{
  "id": 5112471,
  "name": "Ligare v. Hayden",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ligare v. Hayden",
  "decision_date": "1893-06-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "69",
  "last_page": "70",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 69"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "79 Ala. 372",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        3190221
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/79/0372-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Cal. 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2228697
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/67/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ill. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        436756
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/15/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 Ill. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2894943
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/117/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ill. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2576937
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/11/0218-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2622,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15543261402498756
    },
    "sha256": "74c3ae194a76a09b9fc4191b9076000f31e6448df9565944fe93d4944a71cc0f",
    "simhash": "1:0eb28cd2d2a61b74",
    "word_count": 453
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ligare v. Hayden."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee sued the appellant as maker of a promissory note, indorsed by the payee to the appellee, after it was due. Another note, made by the payee and guaranteed by the appellant, was then lying overdue and unpaid in a bank.\nThe appellant insists that his then liability as guarantor for the payee is in some way a defense to this note. It was no failure of consideration, nor was it a set-off, nor payment.\nThere was an implied promise by the payee to indemnify the appellant against the consequences of that guaranty, but until the appellant had been damnified, that implied promise could not be the basis of any defense to the note sued upon, whether it remained in the hands of the payee, or was indorsed by him after maturity. Brandt Sur. and Guar., S. 205; Israel v. Reynolds, 11 Ill. 218.\nThe statute, Sec. 12, Oh. 98, Negotiable Instruments, by which a set-off follows a note indorsed after maturity, has no effect here.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. 0. Boneey and Lymae M. Paire, attorneys for appellant'.",
      "Appellee\u2019s Brief, Flower, Smith & Musgrave, Attorneys."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ligare v. Hayden.\n1. Guaranty\"\u2014Implied Promises.\u2014Appellee sued appellant as maker of a promissory note, indorsed by the payee to the appellee, after it was due. Another note made by the payee and guaranteed by the appellant, was then lying, overdue and unpaid, in a bank. It was held, that there was an implied promise by the payee to indemnify appellant against the consequences of that guaranty, but until the appellant had been damnified, that implied promise could not be the basis of any defense to the note sued upon, whether it remained in the hands of the payee or was indorsed by him after maturity.\nMemorandum.-\u2014Assumpsit. In the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding. Declaration, first indorsee against maker; plea, general issue; trial by jury; judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. Heard in this court at the March term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed June 29, 1893.\nThe opinion states the case.\nC. 0. Boneey and Lymae M. Paire, attorneys for appellant'.\nAppellee\u2019s Brief, Flower, Smith & Musgrave, Attorneys.\nOn pleading a set-off, the defendant assumes the position of a plaintiff, and in order to recover he is required to prove the same facts which he would be required to prove if he had brought an original action on his demand. Ellis v. Cothran, 117 Ill. 458; Ayres v. McConnel, 15 Ill. 230.\nA surety has no claim against the principal, until he has made payment. Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, Sec. 1339; Brandt on Suretyship, Sec. 205, and cases cited, especially In re Estate of Hill, 67 Cal. 238; Lane v. Westmoreland, 79 Ala. 372."
  },
  "file_name": "0069-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 66
}