{
  "id": 2617935,
  "name": "Valentine Gramer v. Barbara Joder",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gramer v. Joder",
  "decision_date": "1872-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "314",
  "last_page": "315",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 Ill. 314"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        816505
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/51/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Gray, 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Gray",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 1855,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4387046136686268e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6527006014636375
    },
    "sha256": "ab6d072403c5b6f5ba2208a5c3edba69ab3a2191380777c163ede48505de12d0",
    "simhash": "1:7d59210a3fe63610",
    "word_count": 330
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:24.172785+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Valentine Gramer v. Barbara Joder."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Breese\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe point in this case is similar to that made in the preceding case of Thompson v. Hoagland et al.\nThis note reads as follows:\n$400. Arispe, Oct. 8, 1864.\nOne year after date I promise to pay to the order of Barbary Joder, the sum of four hundred dollars at ten pe. cen. value received.\u201d\nThe court below, trying the cause without a jury, held this was a note bearing interest at ten per cent from date, and, we think, correctly. The words, though abbreviated \u201cpe. cen.,\u201d have a meaning which is well understood. They speak a language all can understand; and no dealer in such securities Avould hesitate to accept this note as a note bearing ten per cent interest per annum from its date.\nIt was alleged in the declaration that the abbreviated words were intended to mean, and did mean, that ten per cent interest Avas stipulated. Had the cause been tried by a jury they would have been justified in finding that this allegation was true. The court, acting as a jury, found it was true, and, we think, correctly. Paison v. Stoddard, 6 Gray, 199; Connor v. Routh, 7 Howard (Miss.) 175. See Keith et al. v. Sturgis, 51 Ill. 142, as to abbreviations.\nThere being no error in the record the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Breese"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. S. M. Knox, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. J. I. Taylor, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Valentine Gramer v. Barbara Joder.\n1. Pkomissoby bote\u2014-construction of words relating to interest. Where a promissory note, after the promise to pay a given sum of money, contained these words: \u201cat tenpecen, value received:\u201d Held,, that the abbreviated words \u201cpe cen\u201d had a meaning which any one would understand, ' and that the words made the note one bearing interest at ten per cent per annum from its date.\nAppeal from the\" Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. E. S. Leland, Judge, presiding.\nMr. S. M. Knox, for the appellant.\nMr. J. I. Taylor, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0314-01",
  "first_page_order": 314,
  "last_page_order": 315
}