{
  "id": 2479183,
  "name": "Justin Butterfield, plaintiff in error v. James Kinzie, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Butterfield v. Kinzie",
  "decision_date": "1838-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "445",
  "last_page": "446",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Scam. 445"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 Ill. 445"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "4 Littell 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Litt.",
      "case_ids": [
        6807010
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/14/0225-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Wendell 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wend.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Wheat 171",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wheat.",
      "case_ids": [
        1428701
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/24/0171-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Johns. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "case_ids": [
        2001865,
        2001789
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/johns/4/0183-02",
        "/johns/4/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 Johns. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Johns.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Peters 136",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Pet.",
      "case_ids": [
        3337844
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/38/0136-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2614,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.698,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.7557659795247126e-07,
      "percentile": 0.895436567923458
    },
    "sha256": "374d5a80d4712fcaac6a3e307d70ce8efdcb91c9623de78285fde0c271f211b9",
    "simhash": "1:0a91d443f97f8a58",
    "word_count": 472
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:33.017060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Justin Butterfield, plaintiff in error v. James Kinzie, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wilson, Chief Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe only question presented for adjudication by the record in this cause, is whether or not in an action against the maker of a promissory note, or the acceptor of a bill, payable at a specified place, the plaintiff is bound to aver and prove a demand of payment at the time and place specified, to maintain the action. The negative of this proposition is maintained by the plaintiff in error, and the affirmative by the defendant. Without going into an examination-of the numerous decisions bearing upon the question, or the reasons advanced in support of those decisions, this Court has no hesitation in saying, that the weight and current of authorities fully sustain the position assumed by the plaintiff. It is not a question of first impression, but one which has been so repeatedly decided, that this Court does not feel itself called upon to examine the reasons upon which former decisions have been maintained. The Circuit Court having decided in favor of the defendant, the decision must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to that Court, to overrule the demurrer, and proceed to a trial of the cause upon its merits.\nJudgment reversed.\nIn actions on promissory notes, against the maker, or on bills of exchange, where the suit is against the maker in the one case, and the acceptor in the other, and the note or bill is made payable at a specified time and place, it is not necessary to aver in the declaration, or prove on the trial, that a demand was made in order to maintain the action. But if the maker or acceptor was at the place at the time designated, and was ready and offered to pay the money, it was matter of defence to be pleaded and proved on his part. Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Peters 136.\n17 Johns. 348; 4 Johns. 183; 11 Wheat 171; 6 Peters\u2019 Cond. R. 257; 1 Campbell N. P. 423; 2 do. 498: 8 Cowen 271; 3 Wendell 1; Bailey on bills 203; 4 Littell 225.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wilson, Chief Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Butterfield and James H. Collins, for the plaintiff in error.",
      "James Grant, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Justin Butterfield, plaintiff in error v. James Kinzie, defendant in error.\nError to Cook.\nIn an action against the maker of a note or the acceptor of a bill of exchange, payable at a specified place, it is not necessary to aver or prove a demand of payment at such place.\nThis cause was heard in the Circuit Court of Cook county, at the March term, 1838, before the Hon. John Pearson. The judgment of the Court below was in favor of Kinzie, the defendant in error.\nThis cause was by agreement of parties submitted to the Supreme Court for its decision.\nJ. Butterfield and James H. Collins, for the plaintiff in error.\nJames Grant, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0445-01",
  "first_page_order": 445,
  "last_page_order": 446
}