{ "id": 5100726, "name": "John B. Lyon v. John J. Bryant", "name_abbreviation": "Lyon v. Bryant", "decision_date": "1894-07-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "331", "last_page": "334", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "54 Ill. App. 331" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "76 Ill. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5315879 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/76/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ill. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5306304 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/64/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 Ill. 46", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2854735 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/109/0046-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ill. 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5237925 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/58/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ill. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5315953 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/76/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2635281 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/69/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ill. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2670839 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/81/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. 155", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5264623 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/43/0155-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ill. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2593844 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/17/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ill. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2587327 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/14/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Miss. 4", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 291094 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/miss/47/0004-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Mich. 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1932098 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/3/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. 948", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Metc. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Metc.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 Ind. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1466779 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind/9/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Heisk. 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Heisk.", "case_ids": [ 8540632 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/50/0679-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Mass. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 N. Y. 281", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2022884 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/20/0281-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Sandf. 120", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Sandf.", "case_ids": [ 1360109 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny-super-ct/4/0120-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Heisk. 327", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Heisk.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5211670 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/33/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Am. Dec. 323", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 Ill. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2923667 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/123/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ill. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5315879 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/76/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ill. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5306304 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/64/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 Ill. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2670839 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/81/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ill. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2593844 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/17/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ill. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2587327 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/14/0424-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 416, "char_count": 6377, "ocr_confidence": 0.523, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08, "percentile": 0.36544601635076024 }, "sha256": "70a96d4c0363cf86e0358bdd440b12b004d38f627d35bdf0f8d6a636d0b0925a", "simhash": "1:3eb2f7569c5e74e0", "word_count": 1106 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "John B. Lyon v. John J. Bryant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee is the indorsee before maturity of a promissory note made by appellant for $3,250, dated May 9,1893, and payable ninety days after date, with six per cent interest, and, as such, brought suit, and recovered judgment against the appellant for the amount of the note and interest. The only plea was the -general issue.\nThe defendant, appellant, offered, as stated in appellant\u2019s brief, to prove that, \u201c at a time when the appellee Avas the owner of the note, he had a conversation Avith Hr. A. S. Lowenthal, concerning the note and its payment, Hr. Lowenthal having called upon him to make arrangements to that end. In that conversation the appellee, then being the OAvner of the note, slandered the appellant, by stating that he (appellant) had conveyed aAvay all his property for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. The appellant made an offer of evidence to prove the above slander in recoupment of the appellee\u2019s demand upon the promissory note. This exddence the trial court refused to admit. In this the trial court erred, and Ave noAV present the question to this court for adjudication.\u201d\nHo other defense Avas offered. The offered evidence was properly refused. In Keegan v. Kinnare, 123 Ill. 280, it is said: \u201c It is an indispensable element in the doctrine of recoupment that the demand sued for and that recouped shall arise qut of the same subject-matter. Stow v. Yarwood et al., 14 Ill. 424; Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Id. 155; Waterman v. Clark et al., 76 Id. 428. Freeman, in his notes to Van Epps v. Harrison, 40 Am. Dec. 323, says (and we quote because, Ave think, accurately): \u2018 In its modern application, the foundation of recoupment is failure of consideration. The defendant, in effect, admits his failure to perform the contract upon Avhich he is sued, and seeks to extenuate his default by shoxving that the plaintiff has failed, in some particular, to do that Avhich Avas the consideration of the defendant\u2019s promise, and to that extent, therefore, the plaintiff has no right to hold the defendant liable; hence, it is essential that the Avrong of Avhich the defendant complains should, in some way, impair the consideration of his contract; in other Avords, it must appear that the express or implied promise broken by the plaintiff Avas the consideration for the defendant\u2019s promise.\u2019 See, also, Christy v. Ogle\u2019s Exrs., 33 Ill. 295. Illustrative of the principle, it has been held that in an action by a laborer for his Avages, the employer can not recoup damages for an injury done by the plaintiff outside the scope of his employment. Nashville Railroad Co. v. Chumley, 6 Heisk. 327. In an action by a landlord to recover rent, the tenant can not recoup damages for a trespass committed by the landlord, which does not amount to a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Cram v. Dresser, 2 Sandf. 120; Edgerton v. Page, 20 N. Y. 281; Bartlett v. Farrington, 120 Mass. 234; Huline v. Brown, 3 Heisk. 679. In an action by a vendor of land for the purchase money, the purchaser can not recoup the damages sustained by him by reason of the vendor\u2019s subsequently entering and taking the crops. Slayback v. Jones, 9 Ind. 470. Damages for maliciously suing out an attachment in a suit, have been held not to be subject to recoupment in the same suit, because the wrong was in no way connected with the consideration of the contract sued on, but was an independent tort. Nolle v. Thompson, 3 Metc. 121; Freeman\u2019s note, supra.\"\nSee also Brigham v. Hawley, 17 Ill. 38; Scott v. Kenton, 81 Ill. 96; Hubbard v. Rogers, 64 Ill. 434; Evans v. Hughey, 76 Ill. 115; McDowell v. Gilroy, 69 Ill. 948.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Shepard" } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant\u2019s Brief, Lee & Hay, Attorneys.", "Appellee\u2019s Brief, Campbell & Custer, Attorneys." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "John B. Lyon v. John J. Bryant.\n1. Recoupment\u2014Indispensable Elements.\u2014It is an indispensable element in the doctrine of recoupment that the demand sued for, and that to be recouped, shall arise out of the same subject-matter. In. its modern application, the foundation of recoupment is failure of consideration.\n2. Same\u2014When the Rule Does Not Apply.\u2014B. was the indorsee, before maturity, of a promissory note made by L. In an action brought upon it, L. claimed that B. had slandered him by stating that he had conveyed away all his property for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. It was held, the doctrine did not apply.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit on a promissory note. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1894.\nAppellant\u2019s Brief, Lee & Hay, Attorneys.\nRecoupment is contradistinguished from set-off in three essential particulars:\n1. In being confined to matters arising out of, and connected with, the transaction or contract upon which the suit is brought.\n2. In having no regard to whether such matters are liquidated or unliquidated.\n3. That the judgment is not the subject of statutory regulation, but controlled by the rule of the common law. Ward v. Fellers, 3 Mich. 281; Myers v. Estell, 47 Miss. 4; Stow v. Yarwood, 14 Ill. 424; Brigham v. Hawley, 17 Ill. 38; Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Ill. 155; Scott v. Kenton, 81 Ill. 96.\nDamages for a tort may be recouped against a claim originating in contract. Stow v. Yarwood, 14 Ill. 424; Brigham v. Hawley, 17 Ill. 38; Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Ill. 155; Scott v. Kenton, 81 Ill. 96.\nIt is essential only that the tort should be in relation to the same subject-matter. Scott v. Kenton, 81 Ill. 96; Brigham v. Hawley, 17 Ill. 38; Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Ill. 155.\nKecoupment may be made as a defense to a promissory note. McDowell v. Milroy, 69 Ill. 498; Waterman v. Clark, 76 Ill. 428. And is admissible under the general issue. Turner v. Retter, 58 Ill. 264; Wadham v. Swan, 109 Ill. 46.\nAppellee\u2019s Brief, Campbell & Custer, Attorneys.\nThe doctrine of recoupment, as laid down by the Supreme Court of this State, applies only to mutual claims arising out of the same subject-matter, and susceptible of adjustment in one action. Stow v. Yarwood, 14 Ill. 424; Brigham v. Hawley, 17 Ill. 38; Streeter v. Streeter, 43 Ill. 155; Scott v. Kenton, 81 Ill. 96.\nTo be the subject of recoupment the defendant\u2019s claim must arise out of the cause of action involved in the plaintiff\u2019s suit. Hubbard v. Rogers, 64 Ill. 434; Evans v. Hughey, 76 Ill. 115." }, "file_name": "0331-01", "first_page_order": 329, "last_page_order": 332 }