Case Name: Kaufman v. Lindell
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1886-11-08
Citations: 20 Ill. App. 663
Docket Number: No 31—2427
Parties: Kaufman v. Lindell.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
No 31—2427.
Kaufman v. Lindell.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by appellant to recover against appellee as indorser on a promissory note of which the following is a copy: “Chicago, Ill., Aug. 29, 1884. $600. Thirty days after date I promise to pay to the order of Alfred Lind ell & Co. six hundred dollars at the office of Hangan & Lindgren, Chicago, value received, with eight per cent, interest, until paid. L. P. Melson. Indorsed, Alfred Lindell & Co.” It appeared from the evidence that the note in suit was given to Hangan & Lindgren to take up a prior note which was due. The prior note was made by Nelson to Lindell & Co. as payees, and given in payment of a debt due from Nelson to said firm, and was taken by Lindell & Co. to Hangan & Lindgren for the purpose of being discounted. Hangan & Lindgren refused to discount the note on Lindell & Co.’s indorsement alone and thereupon Lindell & Co. procured one Veeder to indorse the note with them and it was then discounted, the proceeds being placed to Lindell & Co.’s credit. When said first note became due, Nelson made the note in suit, and it was indorsed by Lin-dell & Co., and taken to the bankers, Hangan & Lindgren, to take up the prior note. The bankers would not give up the old note unless another indorser was obtained and Veeder was applied to again, and refused to indorse the note as he had the prior one, but gave his own note to guaranty the payment of it. Plaintiff paid the bankers the amount of the note in suit, and it was delivered to him together with the note which Veeder gave as security. On the trial Lindell swore in his own behalf that at the time he indorsed the note in suit, he understood that Veeder was to indorse it as hehad the former note. It appeared that Nelson was insolvent, and that nothing could be made by suing him. There was a verdict for the defendant and judgment, and the case is appealed to this court, and the error assigned is that the verdict is against the law and the evidence. The court finds the verdict not warranted by the facts and reverses the judgment.
Opinion filed Nov. 8, 1886.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Judge below, Rollin S. Williamson. Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Blanke & Chytræcs; for appellee, Messrs. Clifford, Anthony & Smith.