{
  "id": 2578281,
  "name": "John F. Gilpatrick, for the use of Joseph Cowgill, Pltff in Error, v. George Foster, Deft in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gilpatrick v. Foster",
  "decision_date": "1851-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "357",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 Ill. 355"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "15 Verm., 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        4417841
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/15/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Mass., 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        2007337
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/2/0358-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Vt., 219",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 4362,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4647101173919263e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6580377852145047
    },
    "sha256": "2371e0166496e16f3243c8462149994cf1a9f10f9140304fe26cd3d261a5fbb5",
    "simhash": "1:60b22410e7627704",
    "word_count": 777
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:27:39.209704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John F. Gilpatrick, for the use of Joseph Cowgill, Pltff in Error, v. George Foster, Deft in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Trumbull, J.\nThis was an action originally commenced before a justice of the peace, on a promissory note for ninety - seven dollars and seventeen cents. The only question in the case arises out of an endorsement on the back of the note which is as follows: \u201cAugust the 4th, 1848. Received on the within, 50\u201d There is no dot or mark of any kind either before or after the \u201c50\u201d to determine whether it means fifty dollars, fifty cents, or fifty something else.\nThere were some other credits upon the note, but not in any manner connected with the one in question, so as to afford the least clue to its meaning. The only evidence in the case was the note with its endorsements, and the Circuit Court held the endorsement in question to mean a credit of fifty dollars, which still left a balance due the plaintiff, after deducting the other credits about which there was no controversy. Nothing can be more uncertain than a credit of \u201c50\u201d on the back of a note. It may mean fifty pounds, fifty bushels, or fifty anything else, though it was most probably intended for fifty dollars or fifty cents, but which, if either, we cannot tell, and because it is wholly uncertain, the credit, unless explained, must be rejected as a nullity. \u201c If an agreement be so vague and indefinite, that it is not possible to collect the full intention of the parties, it is void; for neither the court nor jury can make an agreement for the parties.\u201d Chitty on Contracts, 73; Wainwright v. Straw, 15 Vt., 219.\nAn endorsement of a credit upon the back of a note, is no part of the note itself. The plaintiff\u2019s cause of action, was made out by the production of the note, and though the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the credits endorsed upon it, if intelligible, yet it was no part of the plaintiff\u2019s case to explain them for the benefit of the defendant.\nThe endorsement of the credit upon the note being in the nature of a receipt for money, is subject to explanation by parol, and if the defendant can explain what it means, he will be entitled to the benefit of it, otherwise, it must be rejected as a nullity.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed,.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Trumbull, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Higgins & Strother, for Pltff in Error.",
      "T. Campbell & E. S. Leland, for Deft in Error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John F. Gilpatrick, for the use of Joseph Cowgill, Pltff in Error, v. George Foster, Deft in Error.\nERROR TO JO DAVIES.\nAn endorsement upon a note is like a receipt, subject to explanation, and where wholly uncertain, unless explained, must be rejected as a nullity.\nThis was an action originally commenced before a justice of the peace. From his decision, an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Jo Davies, and came on for trial, without the intervention of-a jury, before Sheldon, Judge, at the March term, 1850, of said Court. An issue was found for appellant, and a judgment was rendered against Foster, for the sum of thirty-three dollars, and seventy-three cents. A motion for a new trial was overruled.\nThe bill of exceptions shows a note executed by Foster to Gilpatrick, as follows: \u201c one day after date I promise to pay John F. Gilpatrick or bearer, ninety-seven dollars and T\\\\, for value received,\u201d dated 3d January, 1848, which was the only evidence offered by the plaintiff. The defendant insisted upon the allowance of certain sums endorsed upon the note as credits \u2022, which endorsements are as follows :\n\u201cMay 17, 1848.. Eeceived on the within 14 70 cents.\u201d\n\u201c August the 4th, 1848. Eeceived on the within, 50\u201d\n\u201cApril 18, Eeceived on the within, 5,00.\u201d,\nThe plaintiff asked leave of the Circuit Court to amend the endorsement on the note, which reads, \u201cEeceived on the within 50,\u201d so as to make it read fifty cents; which was denied. All the endorsements were read by the defendant, which was all the testimony offered. The error assigned was the allowance of a credit of fifty dollars by the Circuit Court upon the strength of the endorsement made on 4th August, 1848.\nHiggins & Strother, for Pltff in Error.\nThe note constituted a good cause of action for the amount. The endorsements thereon were in the nature of receipts, and if there was any ambiguity whatever in the case, it was on the part of the defence.\nThe endorsement was no part of the note. 21 Vermont, 222; McDaniels v. Lapham, 1 Aiken, 311; 2 Mass., 397; 5 Iredell, 276.\nThe endorsement is in the nature of a receipt and is ambiguous. 15 Verm., 215; 1 D. Chip. R., 227.\nT. Campbell & E. S. Leland, for Deft in Error."
  },
  "file_name": "0357-01",
  "first_page_order": 367,
  "last_page_order": 369
}