{ "id": 856724, "name": "Stony Island Hotel Co. and Paul F. Knefel v. E. Johnson", "name_abbreviation": "Stony Island Hotel Co. v. Johnson", "decision_date": "1895-03-05", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "608", "last_page": "612", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "57 Ill. App. 608" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "131 Ill. 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5418661 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/131/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 Ill. 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2727723 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/94/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 Ill. 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 826377 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/89/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ill. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "24 Ill. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5284252 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/24/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "102 Ill. 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 Gil. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilmer", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "43 Ill. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Scam. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "9 Mass. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2029715 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/9/0301-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Mass. 97", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2053427 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/11/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 Mass. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 707323 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/97/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ill. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2584988 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/14/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2662005 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/83/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ill. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "5 Gilm. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilm.", "case_ids": [ 2569796 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/10/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 Ill. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2824211 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/100/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ill. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2810420 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/102/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Ill. App. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4772937 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/4/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Brad. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bradf.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 App. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio App.", "case_ids": [ 1317136 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-app/33/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ill. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2810420 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/102/0634-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 513, "char_count": 7526, "ocr_confidence": 0.522, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08, "percentile": 0.3455019964484416 }, "sha256": "22acd9b24f03435ba065d9faecf33c2c69eea820707f6c4c18889d883002ea58", "simhash": "1:1c35c363006a8f8d", "word_count": 1359 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:41.767696+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Stony Island Hotel Co. and Paul F. Knefel v. E. Johnson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice\nWaterman delivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellee brought suit against appellants and J. H. Lawson. Appellants in their brief say that the copy of the note attached to the declaration reads as follows:\n\u201c $380.00. Chicago, June 8, 1893.\nHinety days after date, for value received, we promise to pay to the order of William Murdock & Co., the sum of three hundred and eighty dollars at office of P. F. Knefel & Co., 162 La Salle St., with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, after maturity, until paid.\nStony Island Hotel Co.,\nPaul F. Knefel, President.\nJ. H. Lawson, Sec\u2019y.\u201d\nSuch copy can be brought before us only by a bill of exceptions. Bowlan v. Lambka, No. 5375, Oct. Term, Ill. App.\nA special count of the declaration charged that the defendants made the certain promissory note in writing by the name, style and description of Stony Island Hotel Company, Paul Knefel, President, and J. H. Lawson, Secretary; the declaration also contained the common counts.\nAppellants also appeared and filed a verified plea of general issue.\nUpon the trial, a jury having been waived, the court found the issues for the plaintiff and rendered judgment against the appellants for $396.15.\nThis was done at the May term, 1894, of said Superior Court.\nThe abstract filed in this cause contains not a word of the evidence adduced upon the trial. The abstract does contain the following:\n\u201c 17, Bill of Exceptions.\u201d\nUpon such a reference, we will not search through the record to see if we can not find in the bill of exceptions something by which the judgment in the cause may be reversed. Gilbert v. Coons, 37 App. R. 448; Medley v. Mix, \u2014 App. R. 550; Allison v. Allison, 34 App. R. 385; Magner v. Trumbull, 33 App. R. 646; C. & G. T. R. Co. v. Crolie, 33 App. 1; Lake v. Lower, 30 App. R. 500; Florez v. Brown, 37 App. R. 270; People v. Angerer, 23 App. 385; Bangs v. Paullin, 37 App. R. 465; Mueller v. Newell, 29 App. R. 192; Hanchett v. Riverside Dist. Co., 15 Brad. 57.\nTreating the cases as -if there were no bill of exceptions, it must be presumed that evidence was adduced upon the trial which was sufficient to sustain the allegations of the declaration (Scanlan v. Keith, 102 Ill. 634), among other allegations that the defendants, by the name, style and description of Stony Island Hotel Company and Paul F. Knefel, President, made the note in question.\nOne may, by a name not his own, make his promissory note.\nIf the recital in the record of the Superior Court, that appellants waived a trial by jury, is in any respect untrue, application should have been made to that court to correct its record; which, during the term at which the judgment was entered, might have been done upon what was made to appear to the court to be true; whereas, after the close of the term, such an amendment could not be made either from personal recollection of the court, or affidavits presented by persons present during the trial.\nThe court properly refused to consider, upon the motion to set aside its judgment, affidavits showing that the record of what occurred during the trial wa,s incorrect. Courts did not, upon such showing, amend their records under the writ of coram nobis and do not now upon motion. Bargwanath v. Wilson, 4 Ill. App. 80.\nWe do not wish to be understood as holding that the note in question appears to be upon its face, the note of any one save the Stony Island Hotel Company. We hold that upon the special and the common counts of the declaration, under an unverified plea of the general issue, filed in this cause, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, a judgment against the parties whose names are signed to the note, in the place where the names of makers are usually found, will not be set aside. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice" } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellants\u2019 Brief, John Knefel, Attorney.", "Appellee\u2019s Brief, Charles E. Pope, Attorney." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Stony Island Hotel Co. and Paul F. Knefel v. E. Johnson.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Insufficient Abstract.\u2014Where the abstract is but a mere index, the court will not search the record to find something by which the judgment in the cause may be reversed.\n3. Bill of Exceptions\u2014Presumptions in the Absence of.\u2014In the absence of a bill of exceptions, it will be presumed that evidence was adduced upon the trial which was sufficient to sustain the allegations of the declarations.\n3. Promissory Note\u2014,Signature of Maker\u2014Name Not Mis Own.\u2014A person may, by a name not his own, make his promissory note.\n4. Amendments\u2014Of Records During and After the Term.\u2014A record may be corrected during the term upon what is made to appear to the court to be true; but after the close of the term it can not be done, either from the personal recollection of the court or affidavits presented by persons present during the trial.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit on a promissory note. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. George W. Blanks, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed March 5, 1895.\nAppellants\u2019 Brief, John Knefel, Attorney.\nIt is immaterial that the payor is designated in the body of the note by the pronoun \u201c we.\u201d Corporations are sometimes spoken of in the plural, as they are a body aggregate; it is proper that they should be. Keith v. Scanlan, 102 Ill. 634; Newmarket Savings Bank v. Gillett, 100 Ill. 254; McIntire v. Preston, 5 Gilm. 48.\nAn agent or attorney signing a deed or other writing should first sign the name of his principal and then his own as agent, or, as in the case at bar, in his ministerial capacity. Mears v. Morrison, Breese 223.\nThe name of the promisor need not appear in the body of the note; the signature thereof to the note is sufficient. Newmarket Savings Bank v. Gillett, 100 Ill. 254, 261.\nWhere a party signs his name as cashier or agent for a bank or corporation, within the scope of his authority, he is not personally liable, unless the instrument contains apt words to make him liable. Hypes v. Griffen, 83 Ill. 138; Hancock v. Younker, 83 Ill. 208; Hope v. Sawyer, 14 Ill. 254; Story on Agency, Sec. 264; Bird v. Daggett, 97 Mass. 494.\nThe form of execution is immaterial if it indicates a ministerial act. King v. Handy, 2 Bradw. 212; Long v. Colburn, 11 Mass. 97; Mch\u2019s Bk. v. Bk. of Columbia, 5 Wheat. (U. S.) 326; Mann v. Chandler, 9 Mass. 335.\nAt common law certain errors could be corrected after the term by writ of error coram nobis. This writ was available even for the purpose of setting aside judgments entered at a term which had expired. The writ of error coram nobis has been superseded in our court by the more direct practice of making application by motion to the court in which the judgment was rendered. Sloo v. The State Bank, 1 Scam. 439; McKinley v. Buck, 43 Ill. 438.\nUnder our statute the trial court has power to amend or set aside its judgments at a subsequent term for sufficient reasons. Simms v. Hugsby, Breese 413.\nSo a judgment recovered by reason of an unauthorized entry of appearance by an attorney may be set aside. Lyons v. Boilvin, 2 Gil. 629.\nA judgment against a person who was dead at the time it was rendered may be set aside at any time within five years. Life Assn. v. Fawcett, 102 Ill. 329; Claflin v. Dunne, 129 Ill. 247.\nAppellee\u2019s Brief, Charles E. Pope, Attorney.\nThe Superior Court rightly held that it could not set aside this judgment after the term at which it was entered had ended. Cook v. Wood, 24 Ill. 295; Smith v. Wilson, 26 Ill. 187; Becker v. Sauter, 89 Ill. 596; Goucher v. Patterson, 94 Ill. 525; Cook Co. v. Calumet and Chicago Canal & D. Co., 131 Ill. 505." }, "file_name": "0608-01", "first_page_order": 604, "last_page_order": 608 }