{
  "id": 2733415,
  "name": "Zebina Eastman et al. v. Edward Anthony et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eastman v. Anthony",
  "decision_date": "1879-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "599",
  "last_page": "600",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "93 Ill. 599"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2890,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.569,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.643594115661138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2914231679144228
    },
    "sha256": "11b8476a4d0e5fa1c7339e6b75cfe8ba70871f282bb099f99e08ddc880e58c42",
    "simhash": "1:b150e529adff9fd0",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:26:31.367707+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Zebina Eastman et al. v. Edward Anthony et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe declaration in this case is upon two acceptances, is against defendants as partners, and contains also the common counts for goods sold. Defendants pleaded severally. One of them pleaded the general issue ivith the conclusion to the country, and filed with his plea an affidavit of merits as to $50 of plaintiffs\u2019 claim. The other defendant pleaded that he did not \u201cundertake and promise\u201d jointly with his co-defendant, as alleged in the declaration. To these pleas plaintiffs demurred, and for cause of demurrer allege defendants have used the words \u201c undertake and promise \u201d instead of \u201c undertake or promise.\u201d The court sustained the demurrer, and defendants standing by their pleas, final judgment was rendered against them and plaintiffs\u2019 damages assessed by the court.\nWithout discussing the question made, whether a party may file a joint demurrer to pleas of several defendants who have severed in pleading, it is sufficient for the decision of the present case that the demurrer in any event was improperly sustained.\nAs we have said in Shufeldt v. Fidelity Savings Bank, ante, p. 597, the words \u201cundertake\u201d and \u201cpromise\u201d are equivalent words, and the use of either of them constitutes as effectual a traverse of a declaration in the usual form in assumpsit as would the use of both of them. When both words are used as in this case, it is a matter of no consequence whether they are connected by \u201cand\u201d or \u201cor.\u201d The meaning in either case is precisely the same.\nOn the objection being made by special demurrer the court might have directed the correction to be made at once without prejudice so as to conform to approved precedents, but it was not material it should do so. The objection is too frivolous to be seriously considered.\nThe judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. D. W. Jackson, for the appellants :"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Zebina Eastman et al. v. Edward Anthony et al.\nPleading-\u2014general issue. It is error to sustain a special demurrer to the plea of the general issue in assumpsit, on the ground the words \u201cundertake and promise\u201d are used instead of the words \u201cundertake or promise.\u201d These words being equivalent, the use of either constitutes as effectual a traverse as both of them, and it matters not whether they are connected by \u201cand\u201d or \u201cor.\u201d\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.\nMr. D. W. Jackson, for the appellants :\nIf the special cause of demurrer assigned means anything, it means that a denial of an undertaking and promise is not a good bar to an action of assumpsit.\nTo establish this it must be shown that there is a distinction in the legal signification of the two words. If there is no such distinction, then one is simply surplusage as being tautological. A plea that the defendant did not undertake, etc., would be good, as well as a plea that he did not promise."
  },
  "file_name": "0599-01",
  "first_page_order": 601,
  "last_page_order": 602
}