{
  "id": 5253410,
  "name": "Morris H. Vehon v. Joseph Vehon",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vehon v. Vehon",
  "decision_date": "1897-04-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "40",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ill. App. 40"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "32 Minn. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        756554,
        756428
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/32/0409-02",
        "/minn/32/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Cal. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        1947231
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/80/0139-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ind. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1518780
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/64/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Pa. Dist. 144",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa. D.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 Ill. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5267585
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/43/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Ohio St. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. 583",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2722905
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/95/0583-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 3972,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.544,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.004174936134804e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8527385187321732
    },
    "sha256": "b9634a058e8131c991f4e149e6350167d6e522c6f5b67f0c13c9e2ca8fa57fd9",
    "simhash": "1:af5bf763edbb9ed8",
    "word_count": 706
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:17.018382+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Morris H. Vehon v. Joseph Vehon."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is an action by the appellee against the appellant upon a promissory note, commenced bv attachment.\nThe defense is that the note was without consideration, upon which subject the evidence most favorable to the appellee is that the father of 'the appellant was indebted to the appellee, his brother; was in business in Iowa, and the appellant wished to move his father and mother and the goods to Galesburg, Illinois.\nThere is, at the most, a suggestion in the testimony that the appellant feared that the appellee would make some trouble about such removal, and so with no communication between the brothers, or between the appellant and his father upon the subject, the appellant gave his note to the appellee for the amount of such indebtedness.\nThere is no hint of any release of the father of the appellant, or any promise to him of extension of credit or forbearance by the appellee.\nThe transaction is simply that .the appellant gave his note for the amount of a debt owing by his father; a debt which the appellant was under no obligation, legal or moral, to pa3r, and upon which debt the giving of his note had no legal effect.\nThere was, therefore, no consideration for the note sued upon. Tiedeman Com. Pap., Sec. 170; 2 Randolph Com. Pap., Sec. 466.\nFear of trouble with the appellee as to the goods which the appellant wished to bring to Illinois, with nothing to show that the appellee, had any right to make trouble, can not be moulded into a consideration. Heaps v. Dunham, 95 Ill. 583.\nAn agreement to forbear or give time to the father of the appellant can not be implied from the fact that the note was payable one year after date, when the case shows clearly that no agreement with him, nor any agreement taking him into \"account, was made.\nThe case is merely that the appellee persuaded the appellant to give his note for the debt his father owed.\nThere being no cause of action, we need not consider the attachment.\nThe judgment is reversed without remanding the cause.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. Salomon, attorney for appellant.",
      "D. Y. Samuels and W. I. Culver, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Morris H. Vehon v. Joseph Vehon.\n1. Consideration\u2014Debt of a Tim'd Person.\u2014A note for the amount \u25a0 of a debt owing by the father of the payer, which the payer is under no obligation, legal or moral, to pay, and upon which the giving of the note has no legal effect, there being no release of the father or extension of credit to him, is without consideration and voidable.\n2. Same\u2014Fear of Trouble.\u2014Fear of trouble with the payee of a note where there is no evidence to show that such payee had any right to make trouble, can not be moulded into a consideration for such note.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur H. Chetlain, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1897.\nM. Salomon, attorney for appellant.\nWhat is known in law as a good consideration, such as gratitude, moral obligation, love, etc., will not support an .executory contract, as a note. Such consideration will generally support an executed contract. To maintain an executory contract, such as the note in this case, there must be a valuable consideration involved in the transaction. Hamor v. Moore\u2019s Adm\u2019r, 8 Ohio St. 241; Kirkpatrick v. Taylor, 43 Ill. 207; Williams v. Forbes, 114 Ill. 169; Kirschner v. Spranger, 4 Pa. Dist. 144.\nThe mere debt of another for which a note is given would not be a consideration, because there is not valuable .consideration to such a transaction. To make a consideration in such a case 'there must be not drily an absolute *\u25a0 release of the original debtor, but there must be outside circumstances showing the release by the creditor of a valuable right and the accrument to the maker of the note of an advantage or gain that he had not before. Wilson v. Tucker; 64 Ind. 41; Leverone v. Hildrath, 80 Cal. 139; Security Bank v. Bell, 32 Minn. 409.\nD. Y. Samuels and W. I. Culver, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0040-01",
  "first_page_order": 40,
  "last_page_order": 41
}