{
  "id": 5205517,
  "name": "Virginia B. Holmes v. George J. Williams",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holmes v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1897-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "114",
  "last_page": "117",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 114"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3006613
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/139/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 Ill. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2993555
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/136/0170-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ill. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5245593
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/26/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5218712
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/41/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "37 Ill. App. 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        859866
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/37/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ill. App. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5004379
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/35/0081-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 5294,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7508252411627088
    },
    "sha256": "8c8e6b030fc5813f9b7f381e6073b0ee691f6f43ced8d1db134e8c9380597c4a",
    "simhash": "1:2594c676dc5add4c",
    "word_count": 909
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Virginia B. Holmes v. George J. Williams."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee sued, and recovered judgment against, the appellant for \u00a7744.84, as the unpaid balance of a promissory note as follows:\n\u201cChicago, III., January 21, 1891.\nTwenty-four months after date, for value received, 1 promise to pay to the order of Ira Holmes, sixteen hundred (1,600) dollars, at his office, with interest at six per cent per annum, after date, until paid.\n(Then follows a warrant of attorney to confess judgment.) This note is secured by a chattel mortgage of even date.\nElizabeth Wallace.\n(Indorsed on the back.)\nFor value received, I hereby guarantee the payment of the within note at its maturity.\nVirginia B. Holmes.\nPay to the order of George J. Williams.\nIra Holmes.\u201d\nThe guaranty over the appellant\u2019s name was written when this suit was begun. Her blank indorsement is, prima facie, a guaranty. Kingsland v. Koeppe, 35 Ill. App. 81; S. C., 137 Ill. 544.\nThe holder of the paper was authorized to write the guaranty over the signature. Swigart v. Weare, 37 Ill. App. 258.\nAs the declaration alleged that the guaranty was made after the delivery of the note to the payee, it was necessary to allege and prove a consideration for the guaranty. Featherstone v. Hendrick, 59 Ill. App. 497; White v. Weaver, 41 Ill. 409; Joslyn v. Collinson, 26 Ill. 61.\nThe declaration alleged that consideration to be that the appellee \u201c would accept and receive the said note of the said Ira Holmes, and for a valuable consideration to her in hand paid by the \u201d appellee. How while the first part of that alleged consideration may be said to be no consideration at all, being- neither detriment to the appellee nor benefit to the appellant, and while there was no attempt to prove the other part, yet as n\u00f3 objection on account of variance-was made at the trial, if on the whole case a sufficient consideration appear, such variance, being removable by amendment, may be disregarded. McCormick Machine Co. v. Burandt, 136 Ill. 170; City of Chicago v. Moore, 139 Ill. 201.\nThere was evidence that the appellee advanced money to Ira Holmes on many notes upon which the plaintiff had placed her name; that -she was asked both by the appellee and his attorney, whether she understood the obligations she was incurring, and that, among other things, she replied that she did understand them, and showed that she did by the tenor of the conversation; that the appellee told her that he was liable to have considerable of her paper\u2014paper with her name on\u2014and she said she was guaranteeing the notes, and assisting Ira (her husband), who had a fair prospect of getting out of debt, and making some money.\nThe fair conclusion on the whole case is, that she intrusted her husband with her name as guarantor upon paper, to be used by him in his discretion. Under such circumstances, the consideration to him was\u2014by implication\u2014 at her request, although the note in suit was not the particular subject of any communication between her and the appellee, or any one representing him. Whether the implication mentioned be a fair one, is fairly debatable, but on the whole we deem it right.\nThe finding for the appellee is, so far as relates to consideration, justified by the evidence.\nThe other defense alleged is, that by an agreement between the maker of the note\u2014Wallace\u2014and Ira Holmes, with the assent of the appellee, Wallace was discharged, and that the effect of discharging Wallace was to discharge the appellee. The answer to that defense is, that there is, first: Conflicting testimony upon the subject; and, second, that the business relations between the appellant and her husband were on such a footing as fairly to imply her consent to his endeavors to get- out of debt, among which were the negotations with Wallace\u2014whatever may have been their character. It appears, on the version of the appellant, that as a result of those negotations, Ira delivered to the appellee a note and chattel mortgage which, if paid, would have extinguished the cause of action in this suit; but it is not shown that such payment was made, or that the appellee is in fault on that note and chattel mortgage. It is not claimed that if the appellee was entitled to recover, the amount recovered is wrong.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nMb. Presiding Justice Shepard.\nI can not quite concur, but hoping that the Supreme Court may have an opportunity to pass upon the questions, which are of much collateral importance, I waive any discussion by way of dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary Mb. Presiding Justice Shepard."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wm. J. Tewkesbury and McClellan & Little, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Slusser & Johnson, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Virginia B. Holmes v. George J. Williams.\n1. Guaranty\u2014Blank Indorsements.\u2014A blank indorsement upon a promissory note is, prima facie, a guaranty, and authorizes the holder \u2022of such note to write a contract of guaranty over such indorsement.\n2. Same\u2014Made After the Delivery of the Note\u2014Consideration.\u2014 Where it is alleged that a guaranty was made after the delivery of the note, to the payee it is necessary to allege and prove a consideration for such guaranty.\nAssumpsit, on a guaranty of a promissory note. Appeal from the \u00a1Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur H. Chetlain, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1897.\nWm. J. Tewkesbury and McClellan & Little, attorneys for appellant.\nSlusser & Johnson, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0114-01",
  "first_page_order": 112,
  "last_page_order": 115
}
