{
  "id": 5200723,
  "name": "Charles Holmstrom v. Oldham Bank",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holmstrom v. Oldham Bank",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "113",
  "last_page": "114",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 113"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1772,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "b4377cd907fd1b6467bb77fd61207763fe03511d256c182954e6971c744b6c66",
    "simhash": "1:48b642682a2cd55a",
    "word_count": 287
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Holmstrom v. Oldham Bank."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Presiding Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAppellee, the first indorsee of a promissory note for $3G2.50, made by the appellant to Fible & Crabb Distilling Company, brought suit on the note and recovered the judgment for $402.22, which is appealed from. Pleas of failure of consideration, and that appellee took the note after maturity, without consideration, and was a mere volunteer holder thereof, were interposed, to which appropriate replications were filed.\nThe evidence showed conclusively, that appellee acquired the note by discounting it long before its maturity for its face value, less the discount, in the regular course of business, and without notice of the equities, if any, which may have existed between the maker and the payee.\nAt the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed the jury t,o find the issues for the plaintiff, and to assess the damages ,at the sum for which judgment was entered. Under the evidence, the instruction was proper; and there was no error in rejecting the evidence offered by the appellant, nor in refusing the instructions asked by him, nor in refusing to permit appellant\u2019s attorney to address the jury in argument after the instruction was given. The case is an exceedingly simple one and the judgment was right. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Presiding Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. M. Shawnee, attorney for appellant.",
      "John T. Bichaeds, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Holmstrom v. Oldham Bank.\n1. Instructions\u2014To Find for the Plaintiff. \u2014Under the evidence in this case the court finds that the instruction to find for the plaintiff was-proper.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Abner Smith, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this-court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1897.\nB. M. Shawnee, attorney for appellant.\nJohn T. Bichaeds, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0113-01",
  "first_page_order": 111,
  "last_page_order": 112
}
