Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0441-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michele Consiglio, Defendant in Error, v. Emilio Longhi, trading as Italian & Greek Product Company, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,193.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed May 1, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Michele Consiglio, plaintiff, against Emilio Longhi, trading as the Italian & Greek Product Company, defendant, to recover on a demand promissory note for four hundred dollars, of which defendant was maker. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
    Brown & Navigato, for plaintiff in error.
    Morgan & McFarland, for defendant in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Bills and notes, § 87*—rohen note is payable on demand. A note which expresses no time for payment is payable on demand.
    2. Bills and notes, § 420
      
      —what evidence is properly excluded in action on demand note. In an action on a promissory note payable on demand, where the defense was that the note was given for. a deposit made by the payee with the defendant, to secure the latter against loss on certain accounts of merchandise sold for defendant by the payee on credit, that such accounts were guaranteed by the payee and proved worthless, that the loss exceeded the amount of the note, that plaintiff did not become the owner of the note until long after maturity, and the offer of the defendant to prove that when the note was offered to h'im. for payment fifteen months afterwards by the plaintiff it had not been indorsed by the payee, and that he then informed plaintiff that the payee was indebted to him in excess of the amount of the note, that he would not pay it and that the indorsements on the note were made subsequent to that time, held that in view of sections 53, 58, 59 of article IV of the Negotiable Instruments Act (J. & A. 1f1f 7692,,7697, 7698), such evidence was improperly excluded.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.