Court Opinion

ID: 7003097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 03:45:38.281137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:09:47.800637
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Waterman delivered the opinion of the court. The instruments offered in evidence, unless payable to bearer or to some person therein named, are not promissory notes. Walters v. Short, 5 Gil. 252-259; Mayo v. Chenoweth, Breese, 200; Smith v. Bridges, Breese, 18; Adams v. King, 16 Ill. 169. If the instruments can be construed as promises to pay the International Loan and Investment Union, see Adams v. King, 16 Ill. 169; neither of them was indorsed by it, and hence no recovery could be had thereon by appellant. The statute does not permit an amendment substituting a new party for the one in whose name a suit is brought. The court properly refused to allow such “amendment” to be made. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.