Case Name: Julius London, Appellee, v. S. Jaffe, Appellant
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1914-03-05
Citations: 185 Ill. App. 249
Docket Number: Gen. No. 18,889
Parties: Julius London, Appellee, v. S. Jaffe, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
Julius London, Appellee, v. S. Jaffe, Appellant.
Gen. No. 18,889.
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed March 5, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Julius London against S. Jaffie based on a written assignment to plaintiff, as assignee of an account due from the defendant to M. Golbus, the assignor. The defense, as disclosed from defendant’s affidavit of merits and as urged upon the trial, was that the assignment was not made in good faith and was without consideration between the assignor and assignee, and that at the time of the execution of the assignment there were no moneys due and owing from defendant to Golbus. From a judgment.in favor of plaintiff for $1,834.29, defendant appeals.
Samuel J. Ahdalmah, for appellant; Jacob Coheh, of counsel.
Julius C. Greehbaum, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Yols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Gridley
delivered the opinion of the court.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Assignments, § 36 -—when evidence sufficient to sustain finding of jury. In an action by an assignee of an account to recover the amount due thereon from the defendant to the assignor, a finding by a jury that there was no understanding between the defendant and the assignor that certain notes given by the assignor to the defendant were to be paid or canceled by the sale of certain merchandise by the assignor to the defendant, held sustained by the evidence.
2. New trial, § 67 —when newly discovered evidence ground for. To authorize a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence it must appear that the evidence has been discovered since the trial and that the party has not been guilty of negligence in not discovering and producing it on the former trial. A new trial will not be granted where such evidence is merely cumulative and not conclusive in its character.