{
  "id": 2591299,
  "name": "Orrin J. Rose, Plaintiff in Error, v. William E. Mortimer, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rose v. Mortimer",
  "decision_date": "1856-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "475",
  "last_page": "476",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 Ill. 475"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 138,
    "char_count": 1820,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4041181913954926e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7992261324888054
    },
    "sha256": "12d573d73c76758e13968703f4f25155ac5c051e5bc4bc7cdaa46a4caab38ad0",
    "simhash": "1:24c5c20cb076bef6",
    "word_count": 310
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:18.872749+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Orrin J. Rose, Plaintiff in Error, v. William E. Mortimer, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cat\u00f3n, J.\nThis was an action on a promissory note, by an assignee, to which the defendant filed a plea of the general issue. Under this plea the defendant, on the trial, offered to prove a failure of consideration, which the court ruled out, and which is the decision complained of.\nThe court decided \u00f3orrectly. The right to defend a promissory note for a want, or failure, or partial failure of consideration, is conferred by the 10th section of chapter 73, R. S., and that statute requires the defence to be pleaded. There is hardly a volume of our reports, in which cases are not found, where this court has passed upon the sufficiency of such special pleas ; but I do not find that it has before been attempted to set up the defence under the general issue. The statute does.not authorize it, and the court properly ruled out the defence' offered.\nThe judgment must be affirmed. '\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cat\u00f3n, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Davis and Martin, for Appellant.",
      "Goodrich and Scoyille, for Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Orrin J. Rose, Plaintiff in Error, v. William E. Mortimer, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO COOK COUNTY COURT OE COMMON PLEAS.\nUnder the general issue, it is not competent to show a total or partial failure of consideration of a promissory note.\nThis was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note. Plea, non-assumpsit, and similiter. The plaintiff below offered in evidence a promissory note, signed by defendant. The defendant then offered evidence to show a failure of the consideration, for which the note offered in evidence was given. This evidence was excluded by the court. To the exclusion of which evidence, the defendant below excepted, and assigns its exclusion for error.\nThe cause was heard before J. M. Wilson, Judge, without the intervention of a jury, at September term, A. D. 1855. Judgment was for plaintiff in the court below.\nDavis and Martin, for Appellant.\nGoodrich and Scoyille, for Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0475-01",
  "first_page_order": 471,
  "last_page_order": 472
}