{
  "id": 5095935,
  "name": "Charles D. Thompson v. C. F. Kimball",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Kimball",
  "decision_date": "1894-11-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "249",
  "last_page": "251",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 249"
    }
  ],
  "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. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5060032
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/43/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Gilm. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gilm.",
      "case_ids": [
        2466657
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/6/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5242678
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/26/0068-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 2942,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.394706189296272e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6434875160675391
    },
    "sha256": "4f86f9766a80397c451f941cae7389b740a8347c006567074ab7b2151769be41",
    "simhash": "1:18faa1f07dbe1e82",
    "word_count": 525
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles D. Thompson v. C. F. Kimball."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe defendant in error sued upon two promissory, notes, both in one count of the declaration, one of which was a general promise to pay, not saying when. The declaration concludes,\u201c by means whereof, the defendant then and there became liable to the plaintiff to pay the amount of said notes, according to the tenor and effect of said notes, and being so liable, in consideration thereof, then and there promised the plaintiff to pay him said amounts, according to the tenor and effect of said notes.\nTet the defendant has not paid to the plaintiff the amounts of said several promissory notes, or any, or either of them, or any part thereof, but refuses so to do, to the damage,\u201d etc.\nNo demand, not even the often requested, is\" alleged.\nIt is assigned for error: \u201c 1. The plaintiff did not attach to his declaration, nor file in said cause, copies of the promissory notes declared upon, nor a copy of either of them. 2. The declaration filed in said cause does not support the judgment so entered by default.\u201d .\nWhether there was a copy attached to or filed with the declaration can not be told here without a bill of exceptions, as such copy \u201c is no part of the record.\u201d Stratton v. Henderson, 26 Ill. 68. Exhibits are not part of the pleadings at law. Hart v. Tolman, 1 Gilm. 1.\nThere is no bill of exceptions, and without discussing the question which the appellant seeks to raise by that first assignment it is overruled.\nAs to the second one, the appellant\u2019s position is that no cause of action could arise on the note with no time of payment fixed, until demand; that in legal effect it was payable only on demand in fact. But his own authority is to the contrary. Story, Prom. Notes, Sec. 29.\nThe suit is enough demand. If it was not, entire damages from actionable and non-actionable causes in one count, would be bad. Chittick v. Town of Lake, 43 Ill. App. 632.\nThere is no error and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James B. Keogh and Joseph Weight, attorneys for plaintiff in error.",
      "M. L. Thaokeberry, attorney for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles D. Thompson v. C. F. Kimball.\n1. Copy op Account Sued on\u2014No Part of the Declaration\u2014The copy of the account sued on required to be filed with or attached to the declaration, is no part of the declaration, and if error is to be assigned upon it, it must be preserved in a bill of exceptions.\n2. Exhibits\u2014An Action at Law.\u2014Exhibits are not part of the pleadings in actions at law.\n3. Demand\u2014 When Bringing Suit is Sufficient.\u2014Where a promissory note contains the usual promise to pay, but without saying when, the bringing of a. suit upon it is a sufficient demand.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit. In the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jonas Hutchinson, Judge, presiding. Declaration on. promissory note; judgment by default; error by defendant. Heal'd in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed November 12, 1894.\nJames B. Keogh and Joseph Weight, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nM. L. Thaokeberry, attorney for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0249-01",
  "first_page_order": 245,
  "last_page_order": 247
}