{
  "id": 5172014,
  "name": "Blakely Printing Co. v. James H. Barnard",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blakely Printing Co. v. Barnard",
  "decision_date": "1896-03-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "238",
  "last_page": "239",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 238"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5150251
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/59/0497-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5079734
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/58/0222-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 1878,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.958875016565372e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5019516581854773
    },
    "sha256": "ddb416979f3605effea636a7e0d6cc3938c42dc02507d49dd1a3496648fe579c",
    "simhash": "1:e900e6228f3b1d12",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:54:49.987215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Blakely Printing Co. v. James H. Barnard."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee, who probably belongs to one of the more intelligent classes of men of business, has manifested his confidence in this court by filing no brief in his own defense.\nThe case is, that on the back of an account upon which there appeared to be a balance due from the Push Publishing Co. to the appellant of \u00a7206.20, the appellee wrote, \u201c February 1, 1895. Guaranteed to the extent of $125, payable February 15, 3895. Jas. H. Barnard.\u201d This suit is to recover that \u00a7125.\nThe guaranty expresses no consideration, and none is proved; some consideration is essential. Webbe v. Romona Oolitic Stone Co., 58 Ill. App. 222; cited in Featherstone v. Hendrick, 59 Ill. App. 497.\nIn this case no consideration can be implied under the principle held in the Webbe case, for the reason that the parties agree that forbearance was not the consideration; each of them attempting to prove a different, other and only consideration.\nThe parties had no communication with each other, and it does not appear that any person with whom either of them did have any communication ever had any communication with the other. So there is no proof that they ever agreed about anything. The verdict for the defendant was the only one which the evidence would warrant, and the judgment upon it is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. L. Flaningham and L. B. Hilles, attorneys for plaintiff.",
      "No appearance by appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "First District\u2014\nMarch Term, 1896.\nBlakely Printing Co. v. James H. Barnard.\n1. Guaranty.\u2014Consideration Essential.\u2014A consideration is essential to the contract of guaranty, and must be proved in cases where it is not implied.\nAssumpsit, on a contract of guaranty. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles G. Neeley, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 31, 1896.\nA. L. Flaningham and L. B. Hilles, attorneys for plaintiff.\nNo appearance by appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0238-01",
  "first_page_order": 234,
  "last_page_order": 235
}