Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0341-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Holdom", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

D. T. Cahill, Appellee, v. J. J. Cahill, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,811.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Bills and notes, § 450*—when evidence is sufficient to show demand of payment upon indorser. Evidence held sufficient to warrant finding that demand of payment of the note sued on was made upon defendant as indorser thereon, in an action to recover on said note.
    2. Bills and notes, § 272
      
      —when demand of payment upon indorser is necessary. Demand of payment of a note upon an indorser is necessary under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
    3. Bills and notes, § 287*—when protest is unnecessary. No protest is necessary under the Negotiable Instruments Act of an inland bill.
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 16, 1917.
    Rehearing denied April 30, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by D. T. Cahill, plaintiff, against J. J. Cahill, defendant, to recover on a promissory note for $750 indorsed by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for $581, defendant appeals.
    Otto G. Ryden, for appellant.
    George M. Weichelt, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Yol». XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.