{
  "id": 5807552,
  "name": "Charles P. Packer v. Melville T. Roberts, for use, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Packer v. Roberts",
  "decision_date": "1892-01-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "671",
  "last_page": "672",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "140 Ill. 671"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill. 49",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2585743
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/14/0049-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2170,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.521,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4685877134090643e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6587328064300274
    },
    "sha256": "4e380049bacd709ebf2f5c2aff849aa8c16a2f40fe87b4ac06b74455c4500afe",
    "simhash": "1:7761bcce993587c9",
    "word_count": 378
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:32:28.193649+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles P. Packer v. Melville T. Roberts, for use, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scholfield\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis record discloses no question of law arising upon the rulings during the trial, which was, by agreement of parties, before the judge, without the intervention of a jury. There were no exceptions to rulings in admitting or excluding evidence, and no propositions of law were submitted to the judge and marked \u201cheld\u201d or \u201crefused,\u201d and there being evidence tending to sustain the finding, its sufficiency was reviewable only by the Appellate Court.\nConceding, for the sake of argument, that the question of whether the suit is properly brought in the name of the payee of the not\u00e9,\u2014he having, previously to the bringing of the suit, executed a voluntary deed of assignment to an assignee,\u2014is before us, the answer must be in the affirmative, upon the authority of Ryan v. May, 14 Ill. 49, Chickering v. Raymond, 15 id. 362, Fortier v. Darst, 31 id. 213, Badgley v. Votrain, 68 id. 25, and Barrett v. Hinckley, 124 id. 32, in which it is held that a promissory note can not, under our statute, be assigned\u2019so as to vest the legal title in the assignee by a separate instrument, but that it can only be done by indorsement on the note itself.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scholfield"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. E. A. Sherburne, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Flower, Smith & Musgrave, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles P. Packer v. Melville T. Roberts, for use, etc.\nFiled at Ottawa\nJanuary 18, 1892.\n1. Appeals and writs op error\u2014reviewing the facts. Where, on a trial before the court, without a jury, the record shows no exceptions to rulings in admitting or excluding evidence, or the submission of any propositions of law, and there is evidence tending to sustain the finding of the court, its sufficiency is re viewable only by the Appellate Court.\n2. Assignment\u2014in a separate paper. A promissory note can not, under our statute, be assigned so as to vest the legal title in the assignee by a separate instrument. That can be done only by indorsement on the note itself.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District;\u2014 heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.\nMr. E. A. Sherburne, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Flower, Smith & Musgrave, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0671-01",
  "first_page_order": 671,
  "last_page_order": 672
}