{
  "id": 435690,
  "name": "Jonathan Taylor, Appellant, v. Michael Sprinkle, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Sprinkle",
  "decision_date": "1819-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "18",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Breese 17"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ill. 17"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Scam., 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2475369
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/3/0505-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 1830,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "sha256": "a766920c9ccaba115563502a12d9bc4e2e604e1af7a3b9c8af632416ea122f3d",
    "simhash": "1:7d67379a9d0514de",
    "word_count": 317
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:48.520166+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jonathan Taylor, Appellant, v. Michael Sprinkle, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion of the Court. This was an action of covenant. The fifth plea states, that the consideration failed. This plea was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained by the court. The validity of the fifth plea, is the only point before the court. The plea was filed under the statute, which introduces a new remedy contrary to the common law, and ought not to be extended too far; and in all special pleas, the manner of avoiding the obligation ought to be shown. As the precise manner is not shown by this plea, it is insufficient, and the demurrer to it was properly sustained. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with five per cent, damages and costs.\nJudgment affirmed.\nJustice Browne having decided this cause in the court below, gave no opinion.\nLaws of 1819, page 59.\nThe principle asserted in this case has been repeated in numerous cases since this decision was made. A reference only to them is necessary. Cornelius v. Vanorsdale, post. Pool v. Vanlandingham, id. Bradshaw v. Newman, id. Sims v. Klein, id. Swain v. Cawood, 2 Scammon, 505. Vanlandingham v. Ryan, 17 Illinois Rep., 25.\nA plea of failure of consideration to an action upon a note, should state particularly in what the failure consisted. General allegations are not sufficient. Parks v. Holmes, 22 Illinois Rep., 522.\nUnder the general issue it is not competent to show a total or partial failure of consideration of a promissory note. Rose v. Mortimer, 17 Illinois Rep., 475.\nUnder a plea of a total failure of consideration, a partial failure can not be given in evidence. Sims v. Klein, post. Swain v. Cawood, 2 Scam., 505.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jonathan Taylor, Appellant, v. Michael Sprinkle, Appellee.\nAPPEAL FROM GALLATIN.\nIn all special pleas to the consideration of a note, the manner of avoiding the obligation ought to be shown; a failure to do it is error."
  },
  "file_name": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 17,
  "last_page_order": 18
}