{
  "id": 5096557,
  "name": "C. B. Post v. F. G. Brown",
  "name_abbreviation": "Post v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1894-11-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "355",
  "last_page": "356",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 355"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2588284
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/16/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ill. App. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5776409
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/3/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Ill. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2592353
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/17/0088-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2413,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15530152530128205
    },
    "sha256": "e3388541d53f95602b322df8d3d0e29bce80426c6db7b6604e993dcc67bd8f33",
    "simhash": "1:7bc43f77389fa6fe",
    "word_count": 426
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:31.699098+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. B. Post v. F. G. Brown."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee brought a suit before a justice against the appellant upon a writing as follows:\n\u201c Chicago, January 5, 1893.\nMe. F. Or. Brown:\nI hereby agree to pay you a commission of 2 per cent on contract price agreed upon between A.W. Hayward and myself on all work specified in said contract. The commission to be paid out of first and second certificates in \u25a0\u2014 days from date of contract.\nC. B. Post.\u201d\nPost was a member of the firm of Post & Strong.\nThe writing copied was signed about seven o\u2019clock in the morning of the day of the date, and about eleven o\u2019clock of the same day the firm signed a contract with Hayward to build for him a house for 120,775.\nWhy Post signed the writing does not appear on the part of the appellee, and the court would not permit him on cross-examination to be .questioned about it. So much testimony as did filter in, indicates that the consideration for the promise was mere extortion.\nThe common law makes a consideration necessary to support a promise, though it be in writing. Hite v. Wells, 17 Ill. 88.\nA promissory note is subject to the rule. Arnold v. Franklin, 3 Ill. App. 141.\nHad the suit been commenced in a court of record it would have been necessary to allege in the declaration, a good consideration. Hulme v. Renwick, 16 Ill. 371.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, that full inquiry may be made as to the consideration of the promise sued upon.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Albert Pealen, attorney for appellant.",
      "Charles M. Weaver, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. B. Post v. F. G. Brown.\n1. Consideration\u2014Necessary to Support a Promise.\u2014The common law makes a consideration necessary to support a contract though it be in writing, and a promissory note is subject to the rule.\n2. Pleading\u2014A Consideration.\u2014In a suit upon a contract in a court of record, it is necessary to allege a consideration in the declaration.\n3. Evidence\u2014 Of the Consideration.\u2014On the trial of a suit upon a contract under proper pleas, it is competent to show why a party signed the contract, as tending to show what the consideration was.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit on appeal from a justice\u2019s court. In the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jonas Hutchinson, Judge presiding. Trial by jury; verdict and judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 12, 1894.\nAlbert Pealen, attorney for appellant.\nCharles M. Weaver, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0355-01",
  "first_page_order": 351,
  "last_page_order": 352
}