{
  "id": 5196426,
  "name": "William D. Boyce v. Commercial Publishing Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boyce v. Commercial Publishing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1897-02-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "617",
  "last_page": "618",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 Ill. App. 617"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 2675,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6016121017094047
    },
    "sha256": "aebeb68f4a118f5896d2468e5032e9aba6e0c553704bf1e7d86a5b5517160453",
    "simhash": "1:1313d2fc00b7ac48",
    "word_count": 448
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:54.666299+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William D. Boyce v. Commercial Publishing Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThe appellee sued the appellant upon the guaranty shown as follows:\n\u201c $2,500. June 30, 1892.\nOne year after date I promise to pay to the order of Commercial Publishing Co. twenty-five hundred dollars, at office Press Hews Ass\u2019n, Chicago. Value received.\n(Signed) . H. P. Hall.\n(Indorsed) W. D. Boyce.\u201d\nThere is considerable dispute, both on law and fact, as to the acceptance by the appellee and withdrawal by the appellant of the guaranty, but the facts about which there is no dispute are, that June 30th the appellant wrote and sent the following letter:\n\u201cPress Hews Association.\nOfficers :\nT. J. Keenan, Jr., Prest., Pittsburgh Press.\nW. H. Griffith, V. Prest., Denver, Col., Sun.\nW. D. Boyce, Treas.,\nChicago.\nH. P. Hall, General Manager.\nHews Office:\nWorld Building, Boom 191, Hew York. Executive Office:\n237 Broadway, Boom\"44, Hew York. Business Office:\n118 Fifth Avenue, Chicago.\nChicago, June 30, 1892. Mercantile Bank, Memphis, Tenn.\nGentlemen : Will you please have the Commercial Publishing Co. indorse the inclosed certificate of stock in blank, and when so indorsed, deliver to them the note attached, signed by H. P. Hall and indorsed by W. D. Boyce, and return the stock to me.\nYours very truly,\nW. D. Boyce.\u201d\nJuly 21, 1892, the cashier of the Mercantile Bank wrote and sent the following letter :\n\u201c July 21, 1892.\nW. D. Boyce, Esq., care of Press Hews Ass\u2019n, Chicago, Ill.\nDear Sir : Beferring to your favor of the 30th ult., I herein inclose, properly indorsed, certificate Ho. 164, for 25 shares of stock in Press Hews Association, and have delivered to the Commercial Pub. Co. note of H. P. Hall, indorsed by you, for $2,500, dated June 30,1892, and due July 3, 1893.\nVery truly,\nC. H. Baine, Cashier.\u201d\nFrom this last date to the time of the trial, the appellant had retained the certificate of stock, and the appellee had retained the note\u2014-the time being about three and a half years.\nWhatever may have been the backing and filling in July, 1892, this long acquiescence justifies the finding of the court, trying the cause without a jury, in favor of the appellee, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Quigg & Bentley, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Moran, Kbaus & Mayer, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William D. Boyce v. Commercial Publishing Co.\n1. Acquiescence\u2014Justifies a Conclusion.\u2014The long acquiescence in this case justifies the finding of the court below in favor of the plaintiff.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note. Payee v. Indorser. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 9, 1897.\nQuigg & Bentley, attorneys for appellant.\nMoran, Kbaus & Mayer, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0617-01",
  "first_page_order": 615,
  "last_page_order": 616
}