{
  "id": 5287122,
  "name": "James Boyle et al., Appellants, v. Elijah Carter, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boyle v. Carter",
  "decision_date": "1860-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "49",
  "last_page": "51",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 Ill. 49"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 314,
    "char_count": 5592,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.592,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5012546753800536e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8095840722760285
    },
    "sha256": "554c254799f109a395298b18293e4fe3b872651efe01dfd093ae10bea99eef62",
    "simhash": "1:90d5364c91f83c35",
    "word_count": 931
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:23:31.160386+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Boyle et al., Appellants, v. Elijah Carter, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Breese, J.\nWe think, filing the note on which the suit was brought, counting upon it, and adding the common counts, is a compliance with the eighth section of the Practice Act,. (Scates\u2019 Comp. 253.) It fully notifies the party what he is called upon to defend against.\nWhether the note is correctly described or not, is a question, of fact to be brought out on the trial, and can have nothing to-do with a motion to continue the cause.\nIt is an established rule of practice and of law, that a prom-issory note may be given in evidence under the money counts, as in this case, and a recovery had.\nThe court erred, however, in calculating interest upon the-note from its date, when it should have been calculated from its maturity, it being made payable six months after date. For this error the judgment must be reversed. As we have the data before us, on which to make up a correct judgment, we will not remand the cause, but enter judgment here for the amount really due, which we find to be, to this date, six hundred and thirty-one dollars and forty-nine cents. The appellants will recover the costs.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Breese, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hawley & Wells, for Appellants.",
      "Beardsley & Smith, for Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Boyle et al., Appellants, v. Elijah Carter, Appellee.\nAPPEAL PROM ROCK ISLAND.\nPiling the note on which a suit is brought, counting upon it, and adding the common counts, with a general demand, is a compliance with the Practice Act.\nThe correctness of the description of a note, is a question of fact for the hearing; and is not a ground for a continuance.\nA promissory note will authorize a recovery under the money counts.\nWhere there is data before the court, to show an error in the computation of interest, the judgment may be reformed in the Supreme Court; and costs will be awarded accordingly.\nOn the 7th of August, A. D. 1859, appellee sued out of the office of the clerk of Rock Island Circuit Court his writ of summons in assumpsit against the appellants, returnable to the September term, 1859, of said court; damages, one thousand dollars.\nThe appellee filed his declaration, containing two counts. The first on a promissory note, as follows, to wit: \u201c For that the defendants, on the 11th day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight, at Rock Island, to wit, at the county and State aforesaid, by their promissory note of that date, for value received, promised to pay Elijah Carter, or order, six months from the date of said note, five hundred dollars, which said time hath long since elapsed.\u201d\nBy reason whereof, etc.\nAlso, the ordinary common counts for goods sold ; work done and materials provided; money received by defendants for use of plaintiff; -money due on account stated ; damages, one thousand dollars.\nAt the return term, the defendants below filed their motion for a continuance, in writing, specifying causes as shown hereafter.\n\u25a0 At September term, 1859, defendants were called, and defaulted, and a judgment for -the plaintiff and against the defendants for want of a plea, for $613.20 and costs, was rendered.\nDefendants prayed an appeal.\nThe plaintiff filed with his declaration a promissory note in these words and figures :\n$560.00. Rock Island, Feb. 11, 1858.\nEor value received of Elijah Carter, we jointly and severally promise to pay him, or order, in six months from date, five hundred and sixty dollars.\nD. BARGES.\nJAMES BOYLE.\nAlso, with his declaration, plaintiff caused to be filed his\naccount in these words and figures, to wit:\nDavid Babnes and James Boyle,\n1859. To Elijah Cabteb, Dr.\nAug. 1.\nTo price of goods sold you......................................\u25a0.... $1,000\nTo work and labor done for you, and materials furnished................ 1,000\nTo money had by you to my use..................................... 1,000\nTo money due on account stated...................................... 1,000\nThe motion for a continuance assigned these reasons :\n1st. That the said plaintiff hath not as yet' filed with his declaration any copy of the promissory note cojinted upon.\n2nd. That the account of goods sold and work done, and materials for the same provided, and money due, filed with the declaration, and sought to be recovered upon under the common counts thereof, is so general and indefinite that the defendants cannot therefrom ascertain for what goods, work and material and moneyj or any of them, the plaintiff seeks to recover.\nOn the argument of this motion, plaintiff\u2019s attorneys produced and showed to the court, together with his declaration, the aforementioned promissory note and account attached to said declaration; it was admitted that the said note and account were the only note and account filed with said declaration; and. this was the only evidence produced or offered upon the hearing of said motion.\nThe court, Drury, Judge, overruled the said motion.\nWhen the cause was called for the assessment of the plaintiff\u2019s damages by the court, the plaintiff, by his attorneys, produced and offered to read in evidence under first count of declaration, the promissory note already set out, to the reading of which, defendants objected, and the court refused to permit said promissory note to be read in evidence under the said first count of said declaration. Thereupon said plaintiff offered to read in evidence the same promissory note under the common counts of said declaration, to which also the said defendants objected. But the court overruled the objection, and permitted the note to be read in evidence under the common counts of said declaration. This was all the evidence produced.\nHawley & Wells, for Appellants.\nBeardsley & Smith, for Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0049-01",
  "first_page_order": 41,
  "last_page_order": 43
}