{
  "id": 5279581,
  "name": "William C. Shirley v. Enoch Howard, and Same v. Corydon Weed et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shirley v. Howard",
  "decision_date": "1870-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "455",
  "last_page": "456",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 Ill. 455"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Scam. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Scam.",
      "case_ids": [
        2471218
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/4/0255-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 106,
    "char_count": 1202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3174484303911155
    },
    "sha256": "1be340e5204f3f97bc604c005eea7747928a1633f0202f964d4b93803cbdc1c8",
    "simhash": "1:78ad607ad9ff8b2b",
    "word_count": 197
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:19.479696+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William C. Shirley v. Enoch Howard, and Same v. Corydon Weed et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nBoth of these cases were actions upon promissory notes, brought by the endorsee against the maker. The only defense was, that the consideration of the notes was a wager on the last presidential election. It was held in Adams v. Wooldridge, 3 Scam. 255, that this was not a good defense against an assignee, talcing the note in good faith, for a valuable consideration, before maturity. We see no reason for disregarding that authority.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Robinson, Knapp & Shutt, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Hay, Greene & Littler, for the appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William C. Shirley v. Enoch Howard, and Same v. Corydon Weed et al.\nAssignee before maturity\u2014subject to what defenses. It is no defense to an action upon a promissory note, by the assignee against the maker, that the consideration of the note, between the maker and the payee, was a wager on the result of the presidential election, where the assignee received the note in good faith, for a valuable consideration, before maturity.\nAppeals from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Benjamin S. Edwards, Judge, presiding.\nThe opinion gives a sufficient statement of these cases.\nMessrs. Robinson, Knapp & Shutt, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Hay, Greene & Littler, for the appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0455-01",
  "first_page_order": 459,
  "last_page_order": 460
}