{
  "id": 5785063,
  "name": "Edward Maher v. Building & Loan Association of Dakota",
  "name_abbreviation": "Maher v. Building & Loan Ass'n",
  "decision_date": "1898-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "231",
  "last_page": "232",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 Ill. App. 231"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "13 Ill. 682",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2582737
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/13/0682-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3361,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4155445678921875e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6478057214918708
    },
    "sha256": "1407202e32025e096e3fe29e84610c0b46befa2879fb58b39768e867885f5aac",
    "simhash": "1:36167e68103d9046",
    "word_count": 561
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:44.895596+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward Maher v. Building & Loan Association of Dakota."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Adams\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe appellee sued appellant in assumpsit, as guarantor of a promissory note of date December 12,1896, for the sum of $250, due forty days after the date thereof, made by Charles Seymour Crysler, payable to appellee and indorsed \u201c Edward Maher.\u201d The declaration contained a special count on the guaranty and the common counts. Appellant pleaded the general issue to the common counts and four special pleas to the special count, to three of which special pleas the court sustained a demurrer, and appellant stood by his pleas. The sustaining the demurrer to these pleas is assigned as error. The first special plea is \u201c That the supposed promissory note in that count mentioned was given without any consideration, so far as this defendant is concerned.\u201d The second is that \u201c The supposed promissory note in that count mentioned was given for a consideration that has wholly failed as to this defendant, except as, to wit, the sum of one dollar,\u201d etc.\nThe third special plea is, in substance, \u201c That defendant, Crysler, gave with the note certain collateral for the plaintiff to dispose of and credit the proceeds therefrom on said note and render balance to said Crysler; that the plaintiff did not use due care in disposing thereof and thereby became indebted to the defendant, Edward Maher, in the sum of two thousand dollars, which said defendant offers to set off against the claim of the plaintiff.\u201d\nThe declaration avers that, at the time of the execution of the note and prior to its delivery to appellee, appellant indorsed it, a fact which the law implies, in the absence^ of evidence to the contrary. In such case, the consideration for the note is the consideration for the guaranty. Carroll v. Weld, 13 Ill. 682; Gridley v. Capen et al., 72 lb. 11.\nAnd no new consideration moving to the guarantor is necessary to support the guaranty. Dillman v. Nadelhoffer, K30 Ill. 121, 121; Brokaw et al. v. Kelsey, 20 lb. 303.\nAppellant\u2019s pleas do not aver want or failure of the consideration of the note, but want of consideration as far as he is concerned and failure of consideration as to him. The third special plea is so bad, as a plea of set-off, as to render comment unnecessary.\nAppellant assigns as error the sustaining a demurrer to his fourth special plea, but he amended that plea, thus confessing the demurrer. Appellee replied to the amended plea and one issue of fact thus formed, was whether appellee had received any collaterals with the note, and the jury found that, with other issues, for appellee. The demurrer to appellant\u2019s special pleas was properly sustained.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Adams"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Maher & Gilbert and Egbert F. Kolb, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Parker & Pain, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward Maher v. Building & Loan Association of Dakota.\n1. Consideration\u2014 When Unnecessary\u2014Guaranty.\u2014Where a person guarantees a note before its delivery, the consideration for the note is the consideration for the guaranty, and no new consideration moving to the guarantor is necessary to support the guaranty.\nAssumpsit, on a guaranty of a promissory note.\u2014Trial in the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Philip Stein, Judge, presiding. Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer. Appeal by defendant.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1893.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 12, 1898.\nMaher & Gilbert and Egbert F. Kolb, attorneys for appellant.\nParker & Pain, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0231-01",
  "first_page_order": 241,
  "last_page_order": 242
}