{
  "id": 8499934,
  "name": "William Linton v. Mary Ann Porter",
  "name_abbreviation": "Linton v. Porter",
  "decision_date": "1863-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "107",
  "last_page": "108",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 Ill. 107"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 2034,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4590769956258195e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8053160628283734
    },
    "sha256": "f3a919e1268ed2b9b9989f5a0a9b8a9ce1fd8c31b57b34a407ffc692a8520cba",
    "simhash": "1:b8c5448652547408",
    "word_count": 345
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:01:21.455791+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Linton v. Mary Ann Porter."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Bbeese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was an action brought before a justice of the peace on a promissory note made by the appellant to the appellee, the plaintiff below, and judgment for her. On appeal to the Superior Court of Chicago, the judgment was affirmed.\nThe defense was, want of consideration.\nThe facts are, that the plaintiff\u2019s husband died possessed of an iron pile hammer, which the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant, receiving the note in suit in payment therefor.\nThe hammer is in defendant\u2019s possession, and the sale and delivery to him, was a good consideration for the note. The plaintiff, by her sale of the hammer, impliedly warranted the title to it, and if.it shall be taken out of the possession of the defendant, he can recover its value on this warranty.\nIt would be great injustice to allow this defense, and at the same time allow the defendant to keep the hammer. Having undisturbed and unquestioned possession of the hammer, he must pay the note. He cannot be allowed to repudiate his note, and keep the property also.\nThe judgment is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Bbeese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs,. \"WalKEb & Thomas, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Waed, StaNeoed & AieeN, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Linton v. Mary Ann Porter.\n1. Consideration \u2014 what is good, etc. \u2014 want of consideration. A sale and delivery of personal property is a good consideration for a note given therefor, although the seller had no title ; and the purchaser cannot, while he retains the possession of the property, defeat a recovery upon the note upon a plea of want of consideration.\n\u25a0 2. Implied warranty op title \u2014 sales of personalty. Upon the sale of personal property there is an implied warranty of title, and if, in such case, the rightful owner shall take the property out of the possession of such purchaser, he may recover its value upon that warranty.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. YaN H. HiggiNS, Judge, presiding.\nThe facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.\nMessrs,. \"WalKEb & Thomas, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Waed, StaNeoed & AieeN, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0107-01",
  "first_page_order": 109,
  "last_page_order": 110
}