Case ID: ill-app_191/html/0105-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Gridley", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. M. Hoyt, Defendant in Error, v. Earl J. Walker, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 20,171.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Caverly, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed January 5, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago by J. M. Hoyt against Earl J. Walker to recover of him as indorser the balance due on the following promissory note:
    “Chicago, Nov. 1st, 1911.
    On demand after date we promise to pay to the order of J. M. Hoyt ($1,000) one thousand and no/100 dollars, payable at-, value received with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Four days’ notice agreed upon.
    Industrial & Historical Pageant Corporation,
    By Laurence Clark, Pres.”
    The note was indorsed by “Laurence Clark,” “H. H. Hoyt, Jr.,” “Earl J. Walker,” and also had the following indorsement: “Jan. 11/12, $120 paid on principal, J. M. H.” The cause was tried before the court without a jury, resulting in the court finding the issues against the defendant and assessing plaintiff’s damages at $986.29. Judgment against defendant was entered on the finding, from which judgment defendant brought error.
    Miller, Starr, Packard & Peckham, for plaintiff in error; Charles L. Cobb, of counsel.
    Eugene L. Garey and Archie J. Deutschman, for defendant in error; Frank D. Fulton and John M. Rankin, of counsel.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    Appeal and error, § 1401—whew finding' supported hy evidence. In an action against an indorser on a promissory note, held that the finding and judgment against such indorser was amply supported by the evidence, there being proper presentment and demand for payment on the maker and notice of dishonor to the indorser, and the evidence did not show a material alteration of such note by adding words as to certain days' of notice after the note was indorsed., , .
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, anti Cumulative Quarterly, same topic anti section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.