{
  "id": 2618504,
  "name": "Jeremiah Goodwin v. Samuel J. Goodwin",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goodwin v. Goodwin",
  "decision_date": "1872-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "497",
  "last_page": "499",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 Ill. 497"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 3181,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9536298194546967e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7371061015526388
    },
    "sha256": "9d4b3d9e8f2a186d9066f8e8ef65e56a19ad45121ef978e88e8fe4b4d2e1c1a5",
    "simhash": "1:ac59d42e9e7d410c",
    "word_count": 545
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:24.172785+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jeremiah Goodwin v. Samuel J. Goodwin."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Lawrence\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action brought to recover one year\u2019s interest on the following instrument:\n. \u201c$3000. Aurora, III., Nov. 7, 1867.\n\u201cDue Samuel J. Goodwin, at the time of my decease, three thousand dollars, with interest payable annually, at the rate of six per cent per annum, provided my assets are sufficient, after my decease, to pay my then liabilities, but if not, this note to be delivered up to my heirs or personal representatives. Jeremiah Goodwin.\u201d\nIt is urged that this instrument (is not a promissory note, because payable only on a contingency, and that it was, therefore, necessary to prove a consideration, in order to a recovery, which was not done. It is true, the instrument is not, technically, a promissory note, for the reason named; but so far as the interest is concerned, it is \u201can instrument in writing'\u201d for the payment of money, and is, therefore, under our statute, to be considered due and payable according to its terms, without proof, in the first instance, of a consideration. By the terms of the instrument, the interest was payable annually, and the maker had himself given it that construction, by paying the interest for the first three years after the note was given.\nWe think the court did not err in rendering judgment for the interest due, without proof of a consideration.\nIt is not necessary to decide whether the defendant\u2019s affida-vit entitled him to a change of venue. The denial of his motion worked him no prejudice, as the only question in the case was the construction of this instrument, and the court construed it correctly.\nThe judgment of the court below is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Lawrence"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Eugene Canfield, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. A. G. McDole, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jeremiah Goodwin v. Samuel J. Goodwin.\n1. Consideration\u2014when necessary to prove. In a suit to recover one year\u2019s interest upon the following instrument, to wit: \u201c $3000. Aurora, 111., Nov. 7,1867. Due Samuel J. Goodwin, at the time of my decease, three thousand dollars, with interest payable annually, at the rate of six per cent per annum, provided my assets are sufficient, after my decease, to pay my then liabilities, but if not, this note to be delivered up to my \u25a0 heirs or personal representatives. Jeremiah Goodwin: \u201d Held, that while the instrument was not technically a promissory note, because payable upon a contingency, yet that, so far as the interest was concerned, it was \u201c an instrument in writing\u201d for the payment of money, and that a recovery of the interest might be had without proof of the consideration of the instrument.\n3. Change of venue\u2014when refusal works no injjwry. Where the only question in a case was the construction of the instrument sued on, and the court construed the same correctly: Held, that the refusal of a motion for a change of venue, on account of prejudice in the judge, could work no injury.\nAppeal from the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora; the Hon. Richard G. Montony, Judge, presiding.\nThe facts appear in the opinion, except that the application for a change of venue was based upon the alleged prejudice of the judge who tried the cause below.\nMr. Eugene Canfield, for the appellant.\nMr. A. G. McDole, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0497-01",
  "first_page_order": 497,
  "last_page_order": 499
}