{
  "id": 2450701,
  "name": "H. S. Tenbrook et al. v. James Ellars and John Ellars, Adm'rs",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tenbrook v. Ellars",
  "decision_date": "1897-09-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "328",
  "last_page": "329",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 Ill. App. 328"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4875155
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/14/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ill. App. 271",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5776326
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/3/0271-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ill. 634",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2810420
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/102/0634-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ill. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        826373
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/89/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 Ill. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5343304
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/87/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ill. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2824211
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/100/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2686066
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/79/0493-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 3016,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08097981774226992
    },
    "sha256": "adf6e652b0bfe6b558e39584b394585a54a031ada2fd7d2deeabc01e1c8fdd8b",
    "simhash": "1:101ff841f8b2ce25",
    "word_count": 533
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:26.715064+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. S. Tenbrook et al. v. James Ellars and John Ellars, Adm\u2019rs."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Glenn\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is an action in assumpsit brought by appellees against the appellants upon a promissory note, of which the following is a haeo verla copy, as appears from the abstract, viz.: \u201c $350.00. Sadorus, III., July 30,1891.\nOne year after date we promise to pay to the order of William Ellars three hundred and fifty dollars, payable at Sadorus, Illinois, with interest at five per cent per annum from date until paid. Value received.\nSigned by trustees of I. O. O. F. Lodge Ho. 738, of Sadorus.\nH. S. Tenbrook,\nA. M. Goudie,\nAaron Cox,\nH. Kelley,\nBurt Brown.\u201d\nThe question raised upon the record in this case is whether the appellants are bound in their individual capacity on the note sued on.\nFrom the body of the note the undertaking appears to be a personal one. The language used is \u201c we promise to pay,\u201d etc., which indicates a personal liability and is inconsistent with the idea of corporate liability as claimed by appellants. The name of appellants are signed to the note with nothing added showing they signed the instrument in a corporate capacity. On the left-hand corner of the note, and remote from the names of appellants, are these words, letters and figures:\n\u201c Signed by trustees of I. O. O. F. Lodge No. 738, of Sadorus.\u201d\nThey are in no way connected with the signatures to the note. Even if they were the court would not take judicial notice that \u201cI. O. O. F.\u201d meant \u201c Independent Order of Odd Fellows.\u201d This is only descriptive of the persons, and extrinsic evidence can not be admitted to show what the parties intended.\nWe therefore hold the note sued on is the individual undertaking of appellants. Powers v. Briggs, 79 Ill. 493; The New Market Savings Bank v. Grillet, 100 Ill. 254; Little, Adm\u2019r, v. Bailey, 87 Ill. 239; Hypes v. Griffin, Adm\u2019r, 89 Ill. 134; Scanlan v. Keith, 102 Ill. 634; Waugh v. Suter et al., 3 Ill. App. 271; LaSalle National Bank v. Tolu, Rock and Rye Co., 14 Ill. App. 141.\nThe' judgment of the court below will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Glenn"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. L. Ray and Charles F. Mansfield, attorneys for appellants.",
      "Roy Weight, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. S. Tenbrook et al. v. James Ellars and John Ellars, Adm\u2019rs.\nPromissory Notes\u2014 Certain Individuals Held to be the Makers of a Promissory Note.\u2014The following note\u2014\n\u201c$350.00. Sadorus, III., July 30, 1891.\nOne year after date we promise to pay to the order of William Ellars three hundred and fifty dollars, payable at Sadorus, Illinois, with interest at five per cent per annum from date until paid. Value received. Signed by Trustees of I. O. O. F. Lodge No. 738, of Sadorus.\nH. S. Tenbrook,\nA. M. Goudie, Aaron Cox,\nH. ICelley,\nBurt Brown \u201d\u2014\nis the note of the individuals signing it and the words trustees of I. O. O. F. Lodge No. 738, of Sadorus, are merely descriptive.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory note. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County; the Hon. Francis M. Wright, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the May term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed September 13, 1897.\nJ. L. Ray and Charles F. Mansfield, attorneys for appellants.\nRoy Weight, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0328-01",
  "first_page_order": 326,
  "last_page_order": 327
}