{
  "id": 438579,
  "name": "The Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Wm. Palm et al., Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. Palm",
  "decision_date": "1856-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "22",
  "last_page": "23",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 Ill. 22"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 2693,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "sha256": "2be6706c418cbbd06e84783b737c04fcb3e4624ee216594618fe0336634b7da5",
    "simhash": "1:7b4638a2d2da94cd",
    "word_count": 463
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:31.803188+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Wm. Palm et al., Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Scates, C. J.\nUpon the trial, to obviate an objection to reading the notes sued on in evidence, by reason of a variance, on leave the defendants amended by inserting in the declaration the further description of the notes, that is, \u201c without defalcation, for value received, payable and negotiable at the Bank of the State of Missouri.\u201d Thereupon the plaintiff asked a continuance because of the materiality of the amendment. Its refusal is the ground of error assigned.\nThe amendment was a material alteration of the contract sued on. A tender at the bank on the day would be no answer to the contract as laid in the first instance, but would fully answer the contract as laid in the amended declaration. Thus was the party surprised on the trial by allowing notes to be read, of which the first notice was then given.\nWhere the place of payment is fixed in, and part of the contract, it must be so described; and an omission to do so would be a material variance. Chit, on Bills, 153, 154. Presentation for, and demand of payment, should be made at that place. Id. 565, 153, 154.\nThe party is entitled to a continuance when material amendments are made. Hawks v. Lands, 3 Gil. R. 230, 231; Covell v. Marks, 1 Scam. R. 205; Ill. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Marseilles Manufacturing Co., 1 Gil. R. 259 ; Rev. Stat. 1845, p. 416, Sec. 23.\nThough this amendment might, at this stage of the case, he within the discretion of the court, yet in case of material amendments, the other party is entitled to a continuance.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Scates, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Underwood and Quick, for Appellants,",
      "G. Kcerner, for Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Wm. Palm et al., Defendants in Error.\nERROR TO ST. CLAIR.\nWhere a party, on the trial of a suit upon a note, amends his declaration, by inserting that the note \u201cis without defalcation pax able and negotiable at,\u201d etc., it is such a material amendment as entitles the defendant to a continuance.\nDefendants in error sued plaintiff in error in an action of debt. Declaration claims $1,943.62 debt, and $100 damages. Two counts on two sealed instruments of writing. Plea\u2014non est factum. Motion and leave given by court to amend declaration upon the trial, by inserting in each count thereof \u201c without defalcation, for value received, payable and negotiable at the Bank of the State of Missouri,\u201d upon the allowing of which amendment defendants applied for a continuance. Court denied it. Defendants below excepted. Court thereupon rendered judgment against defendants for the sum of $1,946.23 and costs.\nThis cause was heard before Breese, Judge, at August term, 1855, of the St. Clair Circuit Court.\nUnderwood and Quick, for Appellants,\nG. Kcerner, for Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0022-01",
  "first_page_order": 18,
  "last_page_order": 19
}