{
  "id": 5083896,
  "name": "George P. Harris et al. v. Coleman & Ames White Lead Company et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harris v. Coleman & Ames White Lead Co.",
  "decision_date": "1895-04-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "366",
  "last_page": "367",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 366"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill. App. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5068799
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/44/0285-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2431,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.605,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4104998013397692
    },
    "sha256": "e20bbf61f45e92d1eb672624d83b4a0b54664292921088187a08b88857492565",
    "simhash": "1:9021a0f3c051ae60",
    "word_count": 429
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:30.003237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George P. Harris et al. v. Coleman & Ames White Lead Company et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is a suit against George J. Williams, as well as the White Lead Co., upon a promissory note as follows:\n\u201c $1,000. Chicago, March 7,1893.\nSixty days after date I or we promise to pay to the order of Geo. P. Harris & Bro., $1,000, with interest at seven per cent per annum from date, at 218 1st Hat\u2019l Bk. Bldg.\nColeman & Ames White Lead Co. Coleman & Ames Per C. I. Williams, Sec.\n[seal.] George J. Williams,\nWhite Lead Co., Gen\u2019l Mangr.\nChicago, Ill.\u201d\nThat it is the note of the company is not questioned, but upon demurrer to the declaration the court held that it was not the note of Williams.\nSuch a holding rejects the \u201c I,\u201d contrary to the rule that in a contract \u201c every word should, when possible, have assigned to it some meaning.\u201d Bishop Cont., Sec. 384.\n\u201c I or we \u201d does not mean that \u201c I \u201d will pay if \u201c we \u201d don\u2019t, but \u201c we \u2019 \u2019 is used as the pronoun meaning the corporation, while \u201c I \u201d means Williams, and \u201c or \u201d is to be construed as \u201cand.\u201d Ho other construction, giving effect to all the words, is possible.\nIt thus becomes a joint and several note, joint by the words and several by the statute. See cases cited in national Bank of Oshkosh v. Jennings Trust Co., 44 Ill. App. 285. This decision is based upon the case as it comes to us. Whether extrinsic evidence can affect the result is not before us.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edwin F. Abbott, attorney for appellants.",
      "Slusser & Johnson, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George P. Harris et al. v. Coleman & Ames White Lead Company et al.\n1. Contracts\u2014 Construction of.\u2014In construing a contract, every word should, when possible, have assigned to it some meaning. .\n3. Promissory Notes\u2014\u201cI or We\u201d Construed.\u2014In. the following promissory note:\n\u201c Sixty days after date I or we promise to pay to the order of Geo. P_ Harris & Bro., one thousand dollars, with- interest at seven per cent per annum from date.\nColeman & Ames White Lead Co.,\nPer C. I. Williams, Sec.,\nGeorge J. Williams, Geni. Mangr.\u201d \u201cIor we\u201d does not mean that \u201c I \u201d will pay if \u201c we\u201d don\u2019t, but \u201c we\u201d is used as the pronoun meaning the corporation, while \u201c I \u201d means Williams, and \u201c or\u201d is to be construed as \u201c and.\u201d\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the March term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed April 22, 1895.\nEdwin F. Abbott, attorney for appellants.\nSlusser & Johnson, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0366-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 363
}