{
  "id": 2752428,
  "name": "Matheus Gottfried v. The German National Bank of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gottfried v. German National Bank",
  "decision_date": "1878-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "75",
  "last_page": "77",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 Ill. 75"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5310490
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/71/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ill. 507",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5315491
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/76/0507-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 4619,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.699805336962679e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4071306859975234
    },
    "sha256": "c398abd8933546b1b6f08b2fff721993bb0ccac73e1e88b72f4def64383230e4",
    "simhash": "1:b905e81da704c024",
    "word_count": 786
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:29.785103+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Matheus Gottfried v. The German National Bank of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Craig\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThis was an action of assumpsit, brought by the German National Bank of Chicago against Matheus Gottfried, on two promissory notes. To the declaration was attached an affidavit of claim, as follows :\n\u201c Daniel K. Tenneys, one of the plaintiff\u2019s attorneys, being duly sworn, says that the demand of the plaintiff in the above entitled cause is for the amount due and unpaid on two promissory notes, copies of which are attached to the declaration herein, the originals being in possession of deponent, and that there is due to the plaintiff from the defendant, after allowing to him all his just credits, deductions and set-offs, $1690.75, with interest according to the tenor of said notes, and that defendant is a resident of Cook county, aforesaid.\nD. K. Tenneys.\u201d\nThis affidavit, it is contended by appellant, was not sufficient to require him to file with his pleas an affidavit of merits, and this is the only question presented by the record for decision.\nThe 37th section of the Practice act, (Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 779,) requires an affidavit of claim to show the nature of the demand sued upon and the amount due from the defendant, after allowing all just credits, deductions and set-offs. Does this affidavit meet the substantial requirements of the statute? If it does, then the ruling of the circuit and Appellate courts was correct.\nThe affidavit is claimed to be defective because the interest was not computed to the date of making it, and added to the principal, and the total amount then due stated in dollars and cents. While it would, doubtless, be a better practice for a plaintiff to state in his affidavit of claim the precise amount due at the time of filing the affidavit, yet to hold an affidavit insufficient which states, fully, facts from which, by a mere calculation of interest, the amount due may be determined, would be adopting a technical rule in the construction of a statute, which might, in many cases, defeat the ends of justice. This we are not prepared to do.\nIn the affidavit the amount of the notes was given, and it is therein stated copies are attached to the declaration; that there is due $1690.75, with interest according to the tenor and effect of the notes. . If the purpose of the affidavit was to apprise the defendant of the amount due the plaintiff, upon reading the affidavit and turning to the copies of the notes referred to in the affidavit, the information is as fully furnished as if the interest had been computed\", added to the principal, and the gross amount stated.\nIn testing the sufficiency of an affidavit of claim, we see no reason why it may not be considered in connection with the declaration. Indeed, this practice was expressly approved in Haggard v. Smith, 76 Ill. 507, where it was said: \u201cThe affidavit was properly made by one plaintiff, and is sufficiently definite when taken in connection with the declaration.\u201d\nIn Haggard v. Smith, 71 Ill. 226, an affidavit of claim, sworn to by one of the plaintiffs, in which reference was made to the \u201cannexed account,\u201d as showing the nature of plaintiff\u2019s demand and the amount due from defendants, was held to be a substantial compliance with the statute. In that case the account referred to in the affidavit was filed with the declaration, as a part thereof.\nThe principle announced in the two cases cited will sustain the affidavit under consideration. When the affidavit is read in connection with the copies of the notes referred to in the affidavit and attached to the declaration, the amount due the plaintiff is not uncertain or in doubt.\nWe are of opinion that the affidavit in substance complied with the requirements of the statute, and the judgment was right. It will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Craig"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Rubens & Hiestand, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Tenneys, Flower & Abercrombie, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Matheus Gottfried v. The German National Bank of Chicago.\nPractice\u2014affidavit of claim. An affidavit of claim, filed with a declaration upon promissory notes, which states the amount of the principal in the notes as the sum due, with interest according to their tenor, and refers to copies of the notes filed with the declaration, is substantially good. The better practice is to state the amount of principal and interest due to the date of the affidavit, but it will answer where the. amount can be ascertained from copies filed, to which reference is made.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court of the First District; the Hon. Theodore D. Murphy, presiding Justice, and the Hon. George W. Pleasants and Hon. J. M. Bailey, Justices.\nMessrs. Rubens & Hiestand, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Tenneys, Flower & Abercrombie, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0075-01",
  "first_page_order": 75,
  "last_page_order": 77
}