{
  "id": 2454288,
  "name": "Charles L. Hoyt, Plaintiff in Error, v. John R. Jaffray et al., Defendants in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hoyt v. Jaffray",
  "decision_date": "1862-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "104",
  "last_page": "105",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. 104"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5250749
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/27/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5288425
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/24/0168-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 194,
    "char_count": 2544,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.656447335834177e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6935915954945636
    },
    "sha256": "1e3b72e94b177899bfc91a94099be6dd906d053dc19931e7c5b4ec5acb8f5dce",
    "simhash": "1:f7a27e757fce1530",
    "word_count": 429
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:28.588554+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles L. Hoyt, Plaintiff in Error, v. John R. Jaffray et al., Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Walker, J.\nThis was an actitin of assumpsit, on an instrument for the payment of $1,13.9.92, payable in six months, with current rate of exchange on E w York. It was payable at Miller\u2019s Bank, at Aurora, Illinois, to the order of defendants in error, and expresses on its face, to have been given for value received. The point relied upon to reverse the judgment of the court below, is, that there was no evidence beyond the note itself, of a consideration, to support the averment of the declaration. In support of this position, the case of Lowe v. Bliss, 24 Ill. 168, is referred to as authority. In that case, the rule contended for was announced ; but in subsequent cases, it has been overruled. Bilderback v. Burlingame, 27 Ill. 338, and Hill v. Todd, ante, 101. The words \u201c value received \u201d render further proof unnecessary, unless its failure is put in issue by plea. The court below decided correctly in rendering judgment, on the evidence, and it must be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Walker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. R. Wagner, and Leland & Blanchard, for Plaintiff in Error.",
      "B. C. Cook, for Defendants in Error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles L. Hoyt, Plaintiff in Error, v. John R. Jaffray et al., Defendants in Error.\nERROR TO AURORA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.\nAn instrument in writing which declares that it was given \u201c for value received,\u201d although \u201c payable with current rate of exchange on New York,\u201d is evidence of consideration to support a declaration in assumpsit in the usual form; unless the question of consideration is directly put in issue by pleading.\nThis was a declaration, in assumpsit upon the following instrument of writing, called a promissory note:\n\u00a71,139.92. New York, March 30, 1861.\nSix months after date, I promise to pay to the order of Messrs. J. R. Jaffray & Sons, eleven hundred thirty-nine and 92-100 dollars, value received, at W. H. Miller\u2019s Bank, Aurora, 111., with current rate of ex. on N. Y.\nC. L. HOYT.\nDeclaration was in usual form, and contained common counts.\nThe general issue only was pleaded.\nTrial before the court without the intervention of a jury.\nThe bill of exceptions shows that the above written instrument was all the evidence on the trial; and defendant objected to the same.\nThe court found for the plaintiff. Motion for new trial, overruled, and a judgment was rendered for' the amount of the note.\nErrors assigned, are\u2014in overruling defendant\u2019s objection to the introduction of the instrument declared upon ; in rendering judgment against said defendant upon the evidence ; and in overruling the defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial.\nL. R. Wagner, and Leland & Blanchard, for Plaintiff in Error.\nB. C. Cook, for Defendants in Error."
  },
  "file_name": "0104-01",
  "first_page_order": 104,
  "last_page_order": 105
}