{
  "id": 816505,
  "name": "Samuel L. Keith et al. v. Frank Sturges",
  "name_abbreviation": "Keith v. Sturges",
  "decision_date": "1869-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "142",
  "last_page": "143",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "51 Ill. 142"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 2251,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6323962022168506e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8223384838266633
    },
    "sha256": "11f9a48bad981189db23cae2b41c95eea9eec93c4f29479210b440b71ebc7860",
    "simhash": "1:6cf5fde6e0921a9c",
    "word_count": 378
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:30:37.780079+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel L. Keith et al. v. Frank Sturges."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe declaration in this case alleges the defendants made and delivered their note to Sturges & Com., and that Sturges & Com. endorsed it to the plaintiff. The note offered in evidence, was payable to Sturges & Com., and was endorsed Sturges & Co. It is objected that this is a variance. The objection is not well taken. Com.. and Co. are both well understood abbreviations of the word \u201c Company,\u201d when used as a part of the name of a commercial firm.\nJudgment affirmed,.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Beckwith, Aver & Kales, for the appellants.",
      "Messrs. Walker & Dexter, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel L. Keith et al. v. Frank Sturges.\n1. Allegations and proof\u2014whether a variance. \u201c Com.\u201d and \u201c Co.\u201d are well understood abbreviations of the word \u201c Company,\u201d when used as a part of the name of a commercial firm.\n2. So, in an action by the assignee of a note made payable to \u201c Sturges & Com.\u201d it was alleged that it was endorsed by \u201c Sturges & Com.\u201d and the note produced in evidence was endorsed \u201c Sturges & Co:\u201d Meld, there' was no variance.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Jameson, Judge, presiding.\nThis was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, brought by Sturges as endorsee, against Keith and others, and a trial was had before the' court. The note was drawn payable to \u201c Sturges & Com.\u201d for the sum of $50,000, hut was endorsed to Frank Sturges, the plaintiff, by the following endorsement, \u201c Pay to Frank Sturges or order,\u201d and signed \u201c Sturges & Co.\u201d \u2019 The declaration alleged that the defendants made their note, and delivered it to Sturges and Com., by which they promised to pay to the order of Sturges and Com. $50,000, etc., and that Sturges find Com. endorsed and delivered the note to the plaintiff. The note, with the endorsement, was offered in evidence.\nThe defendants objected to the introduction of the note in evidence, under the special count, on the ground of a variance between the endorsement as alleged in the declaration, and the endorsement upon the note. The objection was overruled and the note was admitted in evidence, whereupon the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff.\nThe overruling of the objection to the note in evidence is assigned for error.\nMessrs. Beckwith, Aver & Kales, for the appellants.\nMessrs. Walker & Dexter, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0142-01",
  "first_page_order": 144,
  "last_page_order": 145
}