Edleman v. Gilmore
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 75 Ill. 367,1874 WL 9255 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEONARD W. EDLEMANv.BYERS & GILMORE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Mercer county; the Hon. GEORGE W. PLEASANTS, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Abraham M. Byers and Ephraim Gilmore, partners, against Leonard W. Edleman, upon a promissory note for $350, purporting to have been given by the defendant, May 15, 1871, to Alex. Bowers, bearing ten per cent interest from date. The note was indorsed without date by Bowers to W. D. Gardner, and by him to the plaintiffs.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and three special pleas: 1. That the note sued on was not his note. 2. That the payee of the note applied to the defendant to act as his agent in the sale of certain horse hay-forks, known as “Hatheway's self-sustaining, self-adjusting, and self-protecting fork;” and it was agreed by and between Bowers and defendant, that the latter should make sale of said forks when furnished to him, as he should find opportunity, and that the proceeds of said sales, over and above $11 for each machine and its attachments, should be retained by the defendant as compensation for his services, and that to carry out such agreement, Bowers proposed that a contract should be executed, evidencing the agreement, and that defendant was then and there fraudulently, by the false and fraudulent pretext that the paper offered and shown defendant, and which he was requested to sign, was the contract, induced by Bowers to sign the same, believing it to be the contract, and in ignorance that he was signing a note, if he did sign the note. And so by the fraud, and false and fraudulent pretext of said Bowers, the defendant was deceived, and fraudulenty misled and inveigled into the signing and delivering of said note, etc.
The last plea was in substance the same as the preceding one, except it set out the contract shown and exhibited as the one to which the defendant's signature was desired and procured as the defendant at the time supposed, and that Bowers, after the signing of the same, obtained defendant's signature to what he represented a duplicate of the contract, but which was, in fact, the promissory note sued on, etc. The defendant verified his first two pleas by his affidavit.
A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant brings the record to this court.
Messrs. TALIAFERRO & BROCK, for the appellant.
Messrs. BASSETT & CONNELL, for the appellees.
When the testimony for appellant is considered in connection with the written contract, which must be presumed to embrace the whole transaction, within the scope of appellant's intention, there is a clear preponderance in favor of the defense, that the execution of the note sued on was procured by the usual swindling process of patent-right venders, by professing to appoint appellant agent to sell a patent hay-fork, when he had no thought of giving a note. And there is such preponderance, even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rabberman v. Muehlhausen
... ... C. F. NOETLING, for appellant; upon the question of fraud in procuring the note signed, cited Champion v. Ulmer, 70 Ill. 322; Edleman v. Byers, 75 Ill. 367; Byers v. Daugherty, 40 Ind. 198; Gibbs v. Linabury, 22 Mich. 479; Briggs v. Ewart, 51 Mo. 245; Hubbard v. Rankin, 71 Ill. 129; ... ...
-
Myrin v. Konow
...Requirements must be substantially complied with. 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 582 citing Patterson v. Wabash, etc. R. Co., 54 Mich. 91; Edlman v. Byers, 75 Ill. 367; Semmens v. Walters, 55 Wis. 675; Borders Barber, 81 Mo. 636; Bonney v. Cocke, 61 Iowa 303; Elgin v. Hill, 27 Cal. 372; Stone v. St......
-
Am. Ins. Co. v. Rebecca Crawford.
...72 Ill. 218; Chittenden v. Evans, 48 Ill. 52; Newkirk v. Cone, 18 Ill. 449. Fraud may be perpetrated by actions as well as words: Edleman v. Byers, 75 Ill. 367. WALL, P. J. This suit was brought by the appellee against the appellant to recover an alleged balance due upon a policy of insuran......
-
Levinson v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of New York
...tolerated, would lead to tampering with the evidence thus sought to be taken, and afford a convenient shield for perjury.’ Edleman v. Byers & Gilmore, 75 Ill. 367. It precludes opposing counsel from an examination of the witness on the document identified, which is his right. It is next arg......