Aiken v. Hodge
| Decision Date | 30 September 1871 |
| Citation | 1871 WL 8288,61 Ill. 436 |
| Parties | JAMES AIKENv.JOHN M. HODGE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of LaSalle county; the Hon. EDWIN S. LELAND, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by James Aiken, in the LaSalle circuit court, against John M. Hodge, for money loaned and advanced at the request of defendant.
It appears that these parties, with others, undertook to develop an improvement in street cars; and it is claimed by plaintiff below that defendant borrowed of him $500, with which to purchase a share in the enterprise, and that he promised to repay it some time after the loan was made. He also claims that he, by agreement, was to advance all expenses, and that defendant was to refund to him one-half thereof; that he did advance $954.12, one-half of which defendant was to pay to him.
Defendant wholly denies that he borrowed the money or agreed to pay any portion of the expenses of developing the invention.
A trial was had before a jury, who found a verdict in favor of defendant. A motion for a new trial was entered, which the court overruled and rendered judgment on the verdict, and the plaintiff brings the case to this court by appeal.
Messrs. BUSHNELL & AVERY, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. OLIVER C. GRAY, for the defendant in error.
The claim in this case is based upon the assumed express or implied contract of appellee to pay appellant for money loaned. These parties, with four other persons, engaged in a speculation to develop, for their profit, an improvement on street cars.
There was conflict in the evidence as to the advancement of any money by Aiken to Hodge. The discrepancy between them, as to the facts, is very plain and decisive, and we shall make no attempt to reconcile it. The court below, however, erred in the admission of improper and irrelevant evidence, for which the judgment must be reversed
The several conversations between the two Schneiders, Petrie and Hodge, when Aiken was not present, and prior to his connection with the speculation, and which were not communicated to him, were clearly incompetent. They could not enlighten the issue, and may have confused the jury.
The opinions of divers persons in New York and elsewhere, as to the value and practical character of the invention, as detailed by witnesses who heard them, were but hearsay. The facts as to the payment of money by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Goldsoll v. Chatham Nat'l Bank
...in evidence of the insurance policy in the name of Meyer Goldsoll, and the tax returns made by him was error. Starkie on Ev., *58; Aiken v. Hodge, 61 Ill. 436; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 27 N. J. Eq. 399; Campbell v. Quackenbush, 33 Mich. 287; Pierce v. Hartrouck, 49 Ill. 23; Stewart v. Ball, 33 Mo. 154......
-
Barr v. the Wilmington Coal Mining
...testimony being inadmissible: Pitman v. Gaty, 5 Gilm. 189; Bishop v. Georgeson, 60 Ill. 484; Robertson v. Brost, 83 Ill. 116; Aiken v. Hodge, 61 Ill. 436. Messrs. GARDNER & SCHUYLER, for appellee; as to what is meant by quitting work in good faith, cited Wil. Coal, etc., Co. v. Barr, 2 Brad......
- City of Chicago v. Dermody