{
  "id": 5288275,
  "name": "Alexander Cruikshank, Appellant, v. James Comyns, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cruikshank v. Comyns",
  "decision_date": "1860-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "602",
  "last_page": "604",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 Ill. 602"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 4425,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.644,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.184055466713763e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38357352108173104
    },
    "sha256": "cbe27f4ad33fd5b44a50f87f94616819fb8d9a225939b280f9f307d4a8225861",
    "simhash": "1:a240fd8b841054a2",
    "word_count": 752
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:23:31.160386+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alexander Cruikshank, Appellant, v. James Comyns, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Breese, J.\nThe record in this case shows a suit brought, and a recovery had, on the following paper :\n$53.75.\nBanking Office of Alexander Cruikshank, } Peru, 111., September 5th, 1859. )\nJas. Cummins, Esq., has deposited in this office the sum of fifty-three 75-100 dollars, currency, to the credit of himself, and subject to his order on return of this certificate, payable in like funds, with interest, at six per cent, per annum, if ten days\u2019 notice is given.\nE. GUNTHER, Teller.\nThe suit is in the name of James Comyns, and no proof that he is the person to whom and for whom the certificate was issued. The words are not idem sonrns, and therefore proof should have been made that they are one and the same person. It may be that the jury could infer that Comyns is the same name as Cummins, from the pronunciation.\nThere was no proof that a prior demand of the money, and an offer to surrender the certificate, had been made ten days before suit was brought, or that ten days\u2019 notice was given that the money would be demanded.\nIt is the contract of the parties that this notice should be given, and no right to sue arose until such notice was given.\nAs to the objection that the certificate, signed by Gunther, teller, is not evidence against Cruikshank, we have to say, that it should have been proved that Gunther was teller of the bank, and Ms authority to issue such certificate would then be presumed.\nThe amount of the recovery is greater than the plaintiff would be entitled to, calculating interest upon the deposit for the whole time, up to the time of rendering the judgment. Six per cent, interest only could be claimed, but to recover that, ten days\u2019 notice should have been given. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Breese, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. P. Bull, for Appellant.",
      "D. L. Hough, for Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alexander Cruikshank, Appellant, v. James Comyns, Appellee.\nAPPEAL PROM: RECORDER\u2019S COURT OE THE CITY OF LASALLE.\nIf an action is brought by James Comeyns, upon a certificate of deposit given Jas. Cummins, proof should be made that the certificate was issued to the plaintiff. The words are not idem sonans.\nIf such certificate was to bear interest after notice, before interest could be recovered, proof of prior demand or notice should have been given.\nA certificate, signed by A. B., teller, requires proof that A. B. was teller in the bank from which the certificate purports to have been issued.\nTras was an action upon a certificate of deposit, by appellee against appellant, brought before a justice of the peace, September 19th, 1859, and taken to the Recorder\u2019s Court of the city of LaSalle by appeal.\nThe transcript of the magistrate, filed with the clerk of Recorder\u2019s Court, shows the issuing of summons by magistrate, September 19th, 1859; service and return of summons by constable, September 20th, 1859; judgment before magistrate rendered September 24th, 1859, in favor of appellee, against appellant, for $53.75; issuing of execution by magistrate same day, on oath of appellee; delivery of execution to constable; appeal allowed to appellant, by magistrate, to Recorder\u2019s Court of the city of LaSalle; appeal bond with security approved; execution recalled; and that the transcript of judgment, papers, and certificate of deposit, were delivered to clerk of Recorder\u2019s Court, city of LaSalle.\nSummons issued October 17th, 1859, to appellee, by the clerk of LaSalle Recorder\u2019s Court of the city of LaSalle; service, return, and filing same.\nAt January term, 1860, of the Recorder\u2019s Court of the city of LaSalle, by agreement of parties, the cause was submitted to the court for trial without the intervention of a jury; the court, Chumasero, Judge, found in favor of appellee, for the sum of $64.50.\nMotion for new trial by appellant was overruled by the court. Appeal prayed by appellant to Supreme Court, and allowed.\nThe errors assigned are, that the court erred in permitting certificate of deposit to James Cummins to be read in favor of James Comyns.\nThe court erred in permitting said certificate to be read in evidence, without proof that the person executing the same was authorized by plaintiff to do so.\nCourt erred in permitting certificate of deposit to be read in evidence without proof of demand for money.\nCourt erred in finding issues in favor of defendant.\nCourt erred in overruling motion for new trial.\nCourt rendered judgment for too much upon the proof adduced.\nE. P. Bull, for Appellant.\nD. L. Hough, for Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0602-01",
  "first_page_order": 594,
  "last_page_order": 596
}