{
  "id": 2603700,
  "name": "Max Masterofsky v. Henry Hellman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Masterofsky v. Hellman",
  "decision_date": "1901-12-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "214",
  "last_page": "215",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 Ill. App. 214"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5226042
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/48/0248-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2288,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08262721108450724
    },
    "sha256": "88751398f45a7fdddf906be235ce5128181e8d0700949f15fab93c3088156c56",
    "simhash": "1:da57f8e45a03ce0d",
    "word_count": 395
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:49:57.366340+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Max Masterofsky v. Henry Hellman."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis cause has its origin in a confession of judgment which appellee asked to have set aside, and was allowed to and did plead; the cause coming on for trial before a jury, the jury found in-favor of the defendant.\nA defense, among others, was that a note dated October 10, 1897, was in fact given in 1898, after the United States internal revenue law went into effect, and being unstamped the note was void, and could not be recovered upon.\nSecond. That all of the notes were paid.\nThe court gave the following instruction:\n\u201c The court further instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence the note offered in evidence and purporting to be dated October 10, 1897, was delivered to one Louis Heilman, signed in blank, during the month of August, 1898, and the same was and is unstamped with proper revenue, stamps, then the jury must disregard said note, and not take the sam\u00e9 into consideration in arriving at the verdict in this case.\u201d\nThis was error. Congress has no power to determine what shall b\u00bf evidence in the courts of the State. The (U. S. Express Co. v. James Haines, 48 Ill. 248.\nThat the notes had been paid was shown beyond controversy. The plaintiff offered no evidence save the notes. The court might properly have instructed the jury to find for the defendant.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court will therefore be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Elmer H. Adams, attorney for appellant.",
      "B. M. Shaffner, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Max Masterofsky v. Henry Hellman.\n1. Promissory Notes \u2014 Internal Revenue Stamps \u2014 Evidence.\u2014Under the laws of this State a promissory note is not required to have upon it an internal revenue stamp, to make it competent evidence in the courts of the State.\n3. Evidence \u2014 Instruments Without Revenue Stamps. \u2014 Congress has no power to determine what shall be evidence in the courts of this State and it is error to instruct a jury that a promissory note without having an internal revenue stamp upon it is not to be taken into consideration in arriving at their verdict.\nAssumpsit, on a promissory, note. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1900.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 24, 1901.\nElmer H. Adams, attorney for appellant.\nB. M. Shaffner, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0214-01",
  "first_page_order": 240,
  "last_page_order": 241
}