{
  "id": 5115912,
  "name": "Steinfeld v. Taylor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Steinfeld v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1894-01-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "399",
  "last_page": "400",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 399"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "20 Ill. 557",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2596497
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/20/0557-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. 610",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5111954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/51/0370-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4839204976600365e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6616356783735268
    },
    "sha256": "a61275fa4b9e2776c836284eef88a40b5865c430c507f77dc65bc6d1d2070fe8",
    "simhash": "1:36a850aa0e1a9058",
    "word_count": 570
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:15.137575+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Steinfeld v. Taylor."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellant brought suit in his own \u00bfame for a note reading as follows:\n\u201c $090. Chicago, Nov. 15, 1892.\nFour months after date I promise to pay to the order of Wm. M. Taylor Mantel & Grate Co. six hundred and ninety dollars, payable at the Metropolitan National Bank, value received, with interest at 6 per cent per annum.\nLouis E. Steinfeld.\u201d\nIndorsement upon said note: \u201cPay to the order of the American Exchange National Bank, Chicago.\nWm. M. Taylor Mantel \u00abfe Grate Go.\nWm. M. Taylor, Prop.\u201d\nAmasa Jones testified that there was due for principal and interest on said note $114.15.\nThe Court: Q. What relationship does William M. Taylor bear to the William M. Taylor Mantel & Grate Co., and is he interested in the business %\n\"Witness, Amasa Jones: A. William M. Taylor is doing business under the name of William M. Taylor Mantel & Grate Co., and is the sole proprietor of said business.\nThere was judgment for Wm. M. Taylor from which appellant appeals.\nBy whatever name one may contract, he may sue and be sued by his right name.\nThe testimony of Amasa Jones showed to whom the note really ran. The indorsement to the American National Bank was one which the plaintiff, having the note in his possession, was at liberty to strike out; the note being payable to him and in his possession, is presumed to belong to him and he has control over it. Brinkley v. Going, Breese, 366; Porter v. Cushman, 19 Ill. 574; Best v. Nokomis Nat. Bank, 76 Ill. 610; Curtis v. Martin, 20 Ill. 557; Daniel on Neg. Instruments, Vol. 456, 638, 662.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      },
      {
        "text": "Mb. Justice Gabt\non petition bob beheabing.\nOctober 18,1893, the appellant filed his abstract and brief. November 14,1893, the appellant and appellee stipulated for twenty days time, to file additional record. November 28, 1893, the appellee filed the additional record. December 5, 1894, appellee filed an abstract of that record and his briefs. December 13, 1893, the case was taken on the call on the briefs, with nothing to call the attention of the court that any objection could be make to any part of the record.\nOn this petition, for the first time, the objection is made that the additional record is by an unwarranted amendment of the bill of exceptions. That objection comes too late. Booth v. Koehler, 51 Ill. App. 370, applies in principle. Petition denied.",
        "type": "rehearing",
        "author": "Mb. Justice Gabt"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Weigley, Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellant.",
      "J. V. A. \"Weaver, attorney for appellee,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Steinfeld v. Taylor.\n1. Parties Litigant\u2014To Sue in Their Right Names.\u2014By whatever name a person may contract, he may, notwithstanding, sue and be sued by his right name.\n2. Promissory Notes\u2014Control of Indorsements.\u2014The .payee of a promissory note, having the same in his possession, is presumed to be tin-owner of it and has the control over it. He may strike out indorsements upon it.\n3. Objections to Record\u2014On Rehearing.\u2014Objections to the record can not be made for the first time upon a petition for rehearing.\nMemorandum,\u2014Assumpsit on promissory note. Appeal from tluCircuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard 8. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed January 11, 1894.\nThe statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.\nWeigley, Bulkley & Gray, attorneys for appellant.\nJ. V. A. \"Weaver, attorney for appellee,"
  },
  "file_name": "0399-01",
  "first_page_order": 395,
  "last_page_order": 396
}