Case ID: ill-app_194/html/0196-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Higbee", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harold C. Hardy, Appellee, v. A. J. Alexander, Appellant.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. Albert M. Rose, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1914..
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 1, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Harold C. Hardy against A. J. Alexander to recover $70 claimed to have been loaned defendant. A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and judgment for $70 and costs was entered against defendant, from which an appeal was taken.
    No witnesses were examined on the part of defendant. The plaintiff testified that he was in the employ of defendant; that the plaintiff gave defendant a check for $70 to make up the amount the latter paid to one Carter on a horse deal; that the defendant took back a bill of sale on the horses. That subsequently there was a lawsuit between defendant and Carter, in which the latter claimed the right to redeem the horses, while defendant claimed there was an outright sale to him. In that case the court found that Carter had the right to redeem, and thereafter he paid appellant $45.55. Plaintiff testified that defendant said to him at the time he got the money: “You let me have this money and if I make any money, why, I will pay you well for the use of it, but if I don’t make any you cannot lose any. I will stand between you and all danger.” Plaintiff was a witness in the Carter case, and there made statements to some extent inconsistent with the claim that defendant owed him the $70. In the case at bar, plaintiff swore positively that defendant owed him this amount, and in that respect he was not contradicted.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Assumpsit, action op, § 89
      
      —sufficiency of evidence in action for money loaned. A judgment for the plaintiff for money loaned will not be disturbed, where his positive testimony as to the making of the loan is uncontradieted, notwithstanding the defendant’s claim that the money was advanced for use in a joint enterprise or venture.
    2. Joint adventures, § 8
      
      —instruction as to recovering money advanced for joint venture. An instruction as to the right of one to recover money advanced another for use in a joint enterprise or venture, held correct.
    Defendant contended that the transaction was a partnership venture between him and plaintiff; and that he had paid out in fees and expenses in litigation, concerning the horses, as much as he received from Carter, and that plaintiff should hear the loss.
    W. G. Murphey and L. B. Skipper, for appellant.
    Jonas & Haley, for appellee.
    
      
       See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.