Case ID: ill_58/html/0036-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Lawrence", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John B. Bowman v. James B. Millison.
    • Promissory rote—assignment of, as security for precedent debt. The indorsee of a promissory note before its maturity, taking it as security for a pre-existing debt, in the ordinary course of trade, and without any express agreement, shall be deemed a holder for a valuable consideration, and shall hold it free from latent defenses on the part of the maker.
    Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. A. J. Gallagher, Judge, presiding.
    
      This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Bowman against Millison, on the following promissory note:
    “Stamp 60 cts—$1,111.11.
    Decatur, Ill., July 27th, 1867.
    “ Six months after date, I promise to pay Allin & Poston, or order, eleven hundred and eleven ¿¡0 dollars, at Decatur, with 10 per cent interest from date, value received.
    “ J. Bt Millison";”
    On the back of which note is indorsed,
    “ Pay to O. S. Poston. January 17, 1868.
    Allh & Poston-.”
    “ Pay to Jno. B. Boivman, Begent, 20 Jam 1868.
    O. S. Poston.”
    The defendant introduced evidence tending to show the consideration for the making of the note had failed. There was evidence tending to show the plaintiff had received the note as indorsee before maturity, as security for a pre-existing debt owing by his indorser. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant, for the reversal of which judgment the plaintiff brings the record to this courts
    Mr. S. G. Malone, for the plaintiff in error.
    Messrs. Bunn & Bunn and Messrs. Smith & Sterrett, for the defendant in error.
   Mr. Chief Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The instructions in this case given for the defendant, would be understood by the jury as meaning that the plaintiff, as indorsee of the note, could not recover unless he had paid a valuable consideration at the time of the indorsement, and then only to the extent of such consideration. The instructions are in conflict with the doctrine of this court, as laid dowm in Manning v. McClure, 36 Ill. 490, in regard to the effect of assigning a note as security for a precedent debt; The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.