Case ID: ill-app_207/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William J. Corrigan, Appellant, v. Andrew J. Harris, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 23,008.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Bills and notes, § 251
      
       — what defense is available against purchaser after maturity. In an action on a note, evidence held sufficient to show that the note given by defendant was accommodation paper, given without consideration, and that it came into possession of plaintiff after maturity, so as to be subject to all defenses available in favor of maker against payee.
    
      Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Leo J. Doyle, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 2, 1917.
    Rehearing denied October 15, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by William J. Corrigan, plaintiff, against Andrew J. Harris, defendant, to recover on a note for $800, payable to B. Gr. Howse, and by the latter indorsed to plaintiff. • From a judgment of ml capiat, in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Samuel J. Hamblen, for appellant.
    Montgomery, Hart, Smith & Steers, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic, and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Set-off and recoupment, § 40*- — when evidence sufficient to show loan made basis of set-off. In an action by an indorsee on a note, in which a set-off for money loaned to the payee was interposed, evidence held sufficient to show such loan.

3. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 29* — when judgment of not disturbed. A judgment of the Municipal Court will not be disturbed on appeal unless contrary to the greater weight of evidence.