{
  "id": 443431,
  "name": "Asa Knoles et al., Plaintiffs in. Error, v. Parthena W. Hill, Administratrix, etc., Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Knoles v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1861-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "288",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 Ill. 288"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1570,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.602,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.547517733008563e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8140192729383064
    },
    "sha256": "b9d16bb136c0ce556371c89edce1b0f2ee7d87b046353be35d62c62929087d87",
    "simhash": "1:9c55840d98b2e6a3",
    "word_count": 287
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:49.902665+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Asa Knoles et al., Plaintiffs in. Error, v. Parthena W. Hill, Administratrix, etc., Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Breese, J.\nThe memorandum on the note below the date and signatures, and made by the payee, is no part of the note. It is wholly meaningless \u2014 \u201c when due to draw fifteen per cent.\u201d No one can say that fifteen per cent, per annum was reserved, even if it was shown the memorandum was placed there by the parties. There is no proof whatever that the memorandum was made at the time the note was made, or was signed by the parties as a part of the contract. The note is complete without it, and bears interest at ten per cent, from its date. There is no proof whatever of usury, none of a corrupt agreement to reserve more than ten per cent, on the indebtedness.\nThe judgment for the interest as computed at ten per cent, is correct, and is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Breese, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas P. Cowan, for Plaintiffs in Error.",
      "Stuart & Edwards, for Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Asa Knoles et al., Plaintiffs in. Error, v. Parthena W. Hill, Administratrix, etc., Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO MENARD.\nA memorandum, not a part of a note, without proof as to how it came on the same paper with the note, will not prevent a recovery upon the note, according toils effect.\nThis was an action commenced in the probate court of Menard county, and taken by appeal to the Circuit Court. It was in assumpsit on a note signed by the plaintiffs in error. The note was drawn in the usual manner for twelve hundred dollars, to bear ten per cent, interest. On the same paper, below and apart from the signatures, was this memorandum: \u201cWhen due to draw fifteen per cent.\u201d\nThe judgment was for the plaintiff below.\nThomas P. Cowan, for Plaintiffs in Error.\nStuart & Edwards, for Defendant in Error."
  },
  "file_name": "0288-01",
  "first_page_order": 294,
  "last_page_order": 295
}