{ "id": 5271073, "name": "Edward T. Ross v. Garrett Clawson", "name_abbreviation": "Ross v. Clawson", "decision_date": "1868-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "402", "last_page": "406", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "47 Ill. 402" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "4 Gilm. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gilm.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 Scam. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 Ill. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5243690 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/26/0066-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 325, "char_count": 6339, "ocr_confidence": 0.504, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0766377855645895e-07, "percentile": 0.5611460359271911 }, "sha256": "d6c335a45fcf8c2bcbfca8988944873c21d2fc352e3b6249781093efe1604799", "simhash": "1:15fcf57c207f9542", "word_count": 1097 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:57.354715+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Edward T. Ross v. Garrett Clawson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought to the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Cairo, by Garrett Clawson, against Edward T. Eoss and George M. Hinckley, as partners, on the following note: \u201c Thirty days after date, for value received, we promise to pay G. Clawson, or order, the sum of two hundred and thirty dollars and twenty-five cents. Cairo, Sept. 2,1867. EOSS & HINCKLEY.\u201d\nThe declaration, in the introductory part, describes the plaintiff as Garrett Clawson, and the defendants, Edward T. Eoss and George M. Hinckley, partners, doing business under the name and style of Eoss & Hinckley, and then avers that they made their promissory note in writing, and delivered the same to the plaintiff.\nWith this special count on the note, were the common counts. Process was served on Eoss only, and the general issue being pleaded by him, the cause was submitted to the court, without a jury.\nOn presenting the note as \"evidence, the defendant objected, but the court admitted it in evidence, and the defendant excepted.\nThis was all the evidence, and the court found for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at two hundred and thirty-six dollars, and, after overruling a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment for that amount.\nTo reverse this judgment, the defendant brings the record here by writ of error, and makes the objection that the note was improperly admitted as evidence.\nCounsel, in support of the objections, refers to the case of Johnson impleaded, &c., v. Buel et al., 26 Ill. 66.\nThat case is not like this. Here, it is substantially averred in the declaration, that the note was executed by the defendants as partners. There was no such averment, or an equivalent to it, in the case cited.\nIt differs from the case of Hurd et al. v. Curtis et al., 18 ib. 188, also cited by plaintiff in error. In that case, the declaration averred that the note was executed by Israel A. Hurd, William C. Hurd and John M. y oteler, as joint makers of the note. There was no allegation that they were partners, or that they used the signatures of Hurds and Hoteler; hence, the note offered did not support the simple allegation that Israel A. and William C. Hurd, and John M.yoteler executed the note. It did not show that they were the Hurds and y oteler who signed the note.\nThe case of Brent v. Shook, 36 ib. 125, does not appear to us to have any bearing on this case. That merely decides that a plaintiff, describing himself as administrator, being upon a note executed to him as administrator, and not making profert of his letters of administration, shall be considered as suing in his own right,, and the addition of \u201c administrator \u201d held to be mere description of the person.\nIn this case, it is substantially alleged that the note was executed by the defendants as partners, and, under the general issue, their liability as such was admitted.\nAs to the remaining objection, that the note was payable to G-. Clawson, and there was no averment that Garrett Clawson is the same person, and no offer or attempt to prove it,\u2014under the authority of the case of Greathouse v. Kip, 3 Scam. 331, and of Pickering v. Pulsifer, 4 Gilm. 19, that fact will be presumed. In Kip\u2019s case, the note was averred to be made payable to Theodore H. H. Kip. The production of a note signed T. H. H. Kip, was held to sustain the averment, without further proof.\nIn the other case, the declaration averred that Loring Pickering made the note. A note signed L. Pickering was the only evidence -offered on the trial, and it was held the averment was supported. See, also, on this point, Cooper v. Bailey, 52 Maine, 230.\nPerceiving no error in the record, the judgment must be affirmed.\nJudgment aff/rmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Breese" } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. S. P. Wheeler, for the plaintiff in error.", "Messrs. Munn & Pope, for the defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Edward T. Ross v. Garrett Clawson.\n1. Pleading\u2014of the description of the makers of a note executed by partner's. Where a declaration upon a promissory note, in the introductory part thereof, described the defendants, Edward T. Eoss and George M. Hinckley, partners, doing business under the name of Boss & Hinckley, and then averred they made the note sued upon\u2014that is, substantially, an averment, that the note was executed by them as partners.\n2, Pleading and evidence\u2014of the admissibility of a note in evidence, as declared \u2022upon. Where it is averred in a declaration upon a promissory note, the instrument declared upon was executed to \u201c Garrett Clawson,\u201d\u2014a note which is made payable to \u201c G. Clawson \u201d will support the averment.\nWbit ob Ebbob to the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Cairo; the Hon. John Olney, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, upon a promissory note, brought by Garrett Clawson, against Edward T. Boss and George M. Hinckley. A special count in the declaration describes the parties to the note as follows: \u201c Garrett Claw-son, plaintiff in this suit, by Munn & Pope, his attorneys, complains of Edward T. Boss and George M. Hinckley, partners, doing business under the name, style and firm of Boss & Hinckley, defendants, of a plea of trespass on the case on premises, for that, whereas, the defendants, on &c., at &c., made their promissory note in writing, and delivered the same to the plaintiff, and thereby promised to pay to the plaintiff or order, two hundred and thirty dollars and twenty-five cents, for value received, in thirty days after the date thereof, which period has now elapsed, and the defendants, then and there, in consideration of the premises, promised to pay the amount of the said note to the plaintiff, according to the tenor and effect thereof.\u201d\nThe note offered in evidence, under this count, was as follows : - \u201c Thirty days after date, for value received, we promise to pay G. Clawson, or order, the sum of two hundred and thirty dollars and twenty-five cents.\nCairo, Sept. 2, 1867.\n(Signed,) BOSS & HIHOKLEY,\u201d\nand was objected to.\n1st. Because payee of note was not correctly described.\n2d. That those who executed the note did so as partners. The court admitted the note in evidence, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff, against the defendant Eoss, who, alone, was served with process, whereupon he sued out this writ of error, and insists that his objection to the note in evidence was well taken.\nMr. S. P. Wheeler, for the plaintiff in error.\nMessrs. Munn & Pope, for the defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0402-01", "first_page_order": 410, "last_page_order": 414 }