{
  "id": 5204581,
  "name": "Guy H. Cutting, impleaded, etc., Appellant, v. Andrew J. Conklin, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cutting v. Conklin",
  "decision_date": "1862-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "508",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 Ill. 506"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2469070
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/4/0025-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 330,
    "char_count": 5511,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.298104758085388e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6215171231990746
    },
    "sha256": "1991d0bd19be957bd4fe756db415d5aa40355a1286cdc49b57605fbff5ef9467",
    "simhash": "1:8ed65ced52a03b94",
    "word_count": 987
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:34.240099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Guy H. Cutting, impleaded, etc., Appellant, v. Andrew J. Conklin, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Walker, J.\nIt is urged, that the plaintiff below employed the singular instead of the plural number, in describing the defendants in his declaration. Whilst this is true in at least two places, yet in the beginning of the count they are described as \u201c the defendants; \u201d also, in the breach. In stating the manner in which they executed the note, the averment is, that the \u201cdefendant,\u201d by the name and style of \u201cWalker & Cutting,\u201d promised- to pay, etc. This might possibly have been grounds of special demurrer, but not for arrest of judgment, had such a motion been interposed. It is not a variance, as it appears only to have been a mere slip of the pen, unimportant in its character, in nowise changing the sense. There is no person who would not say that the count was against the defendants. About this there can be no doubt, and is sufficiently certain.\nIt is again urged, that in the date the month is written \u201cFeb\u2019y,\u201d whilst in the declaration it is written in full. No objection seems to have been made, by the defendants on the trial, to the admission of the note in evidence. If there had been any force in the objection, which we by no means concede, it was waived by permitting it to be read without objection.\nIt is insisted, that there was a variance between the declaration and the note. The note is payable to \u201c J. E. Conklan,\u201d and the name is written in the declaration as \u201c J. E. Conklin.\u201d This is one and the same name in sound, and falls within the case of Stevens v. Stebbins, 3 Scam. 25.\nIt is urged as an error, that the note was described as having been assigned in writing, whilst, when produced, it was assigned in blank. The name of the payee was indorsed upon the note, and being in writing, it has always been held sufficient to pass the title to negotiable paper. The plaintiff had the right to fill it up on the trial, and would no doubt have done so, if the objection had been made. This objection comes too late, and is without force.\nIt is lastly objected, that the finding was against the evidence. It fails to establish a payment. It appears, that an offer was made by the payee, to remit ten per cent., if the makers would pay money by a specified time, but whether on .this -or .other indebtedness, the witnesses are unable to state. Nor do they say what sum was paid. Such evidence is altogether insufficient to defeat a recovery on the note. The objections raised upon this record are all wholly without any force, and the judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Walker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. \"Wattghop, and C. C. Bonnet, for Appellant.",
      "M. Rorke, for Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Guy H. Cutting, impleaded, etc., Appellant, v. Andrew J. Conklin, Appellee.\nAPPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHICAGO.\nA mistake in using the word defendant for defendants in some parts of a declaration, is unimportant, where the meaning is obvious.\nThe use of the word Feb\u2019y instead of February, in describing a note, is unimportant.\nThe describing a note made payable to \u201c Conklan,\u201d as being payable to Conklin, is unimportant; they are the same in sound.\nA note indorsed in blank, is sufficient to pass the title to it; and the blank may be filled on the trial.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s declaration contains a single count in assumpsit, in the usual form, on a promissory note, as follows:\n$300.00.\nChicago, Feb\u2019y 22nd, 1860.\nFive months after date we promise to pay to the order of J. E. Conklan Three Hundred Dollars, at our office, value received, with interest at ten per cent.\nWALKER & CUTTING.\nIndorsed, J. E. Conklin.\nDefendant Walker was not served, and did not plead below.\nCutting plead general issue, non-assumpsit, and notice of special matter. *\nAt the April term, 1861, of Superior Court, a jury was waived, and the cause was tried by Higgins, Judge, who rendered a judgment for the plaintiff below, appellee here.\nThe following errors were assigned:\nThe court below erred in not rejecting the note offered, and admitted as evidence in this cause, on the ground of a variance between the said note and the declaration of the plaintiff below, in the following instances, to wit:\nThe said plaintiff below described the said defendants below in his said declaration as \u201c defendant,\u201d in the singular number, when they should have been charged in the plural number, as they were both sued and were both liable.\nThe note is dated \u201c Feb\u2019y,\u201d and the said declaration charges it to be dated \u201c February,\u201d without any qualification or allegation as to the legal effect of the abbreviation of the word.\nThe payee of the said note is J. E. Conklan, according to the copy filed with the declaration and by the note itself, and the said payee is described in the said declaration as J. E. Conklin, without any qualification or charge as to the legal effect of the variance, the name in the note as payee, and the name of the payee in the declaration, being different names.\nIt is alleged in the said declaration, that the payee indorsed in writing the said note, and then and there ordered and appointed the said sum of money in the said note mentioned to be paid to the said plaintiff, etc., when in truth and in fact there is no indorsement whatever on the back of the said note, except and only the name of \u201c J. E. Conklin,\u201d signed in blank, and no copy of the instrument, indorsed as alleged in said declaration, was filed with the declaration in said cause.\nThe court below erred in giving judgment in favor of the said plaintiff below, when he was not the owner of the note sued on, and not legally entitled to recover thereon.\nJ. W. \"Wattghop, and C. C. Bonnet, for Appellant.\nM. Rorke, for Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 506,
  "last_page_order": 508
}