Case ID: ill-app_186/html/0244-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James M. Swan, Appellant, v. Charles Lathe, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 5,890.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the City Court of Sterling; the Hon. William A. Blodgett, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed April 15, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by James M. Swan against Charles Lathe on a promissory note for one hundred dollars. Suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace where plaintiff was defeated, and on taking an appeal to the City Court of Sterling he was again defeated, From the judgment of the City Court, plaintiff appeals.
    Brooks & Brooks and I. L. Weaver, for appellant.
    J. J. Ludens, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Bills and notes, § 50 —what constitutes a good consideration for a note. Where a person having certain property in his possession gives his promissory note to another in settlement of a- claim of the latter that a third person’s interest in the property had been assigned to him to settle a balance due on a certain chattel mortgage, held that there was a good consideration for the note if the claim was true.

2. Bills and notes, § 420 —when exclusion of letter is error. In an action on a promissory note, where the defense was want of consideration, exclusion of a letter offered by plaintiff to show that plaintiff was owner of certain property for which the note was given, held error where the only specific objection to its admission was that it was not written by a party to the suit.