Case ID: ill-app_201/html/0499-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McGoorty", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ida Mark, Defendant in Error, v. Robert Mitchell, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,421.
    (Not to be reported in fall.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Assumpsit, Action of, § 88
      
      —when exclusion of evidence of financial condition of borrower of money erroneous. In an action by a woman against a former employer for money alleged to have been loaned to him by her, held that the exclusion of evidence of the financial condition of the defendant’s business, offered for the purpose of showing the improbability of the defendant having borrowed the money, was reversible error in view of the unsatisfactory character of the plaintiff’s testimony.
    2. Evidence, § 165*—what constitute self-serving declarations. In an action for money alleged to have been loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant, a promissory note drawn by the plaintiff but not signed by the defendant, held improperly admitted in evidence, as it was but a self-serving declaration.
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. New-comes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed October 10, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Ida Mark, plaintiff, against Robert Mitchell, defendant, for money alleged to have been loaned by the plaintiff to the defendant. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    Cantwell & Smith, for plaintiff in error.
    Harry A. Fleck, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.