Foy v. Timothy B. Blackstone.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1863 |
| Citation | 83 Am.Dec. 246,31 Ill. 538,1863 WL 3144 |
| Parties | GEORGE FOYv.TIMOTHY B. BLACKSTONE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. JOHN V. EUSTACE, Judge, presiding.
George Foy, the appellant, having subscribed ten shares of one hundred dollars each, to the capital stock of the Camanche, Albany and Mendota Railroad Company, executed his bond to the company therefor, on the 10th of February, 1857, payable ten years after its date; and on the same day the said Foy executed and delivered to the company his coupon note for one year's interest on said bond, as follows:
“PROPHETSTOWN, FEB. 10, 1857.
On the first day of March, 1859, I promise to pay to the order of the Camanche, Albany and Mendota Railroad Company, one hundred dollars at their office in , State of Illinois, for value received, being one year's interest falling due on that day, on my bond of even date herewith, payable to the order of the said company at their office as aforesaid.
GEORGE FOY.”
This note, together with the bond, was assigned, before maturity, to Timothy B. Blackstone.
The note coming due and remaining unpaid, Blackstone, the assignee, instituted suit upon it before a justice of the peace of Whiteside county, and recovered a judgment against Foy, who took an appeal to the Circuit Court. When the note was offered in evidence upon the trial in the Circuit Court, it appeared to be indorsed in blank, thus: “Samuel Happer, Treasurer.” The court allowed the plaintiff, against the objection of the defendant, to fill in the indorsement as follows: “Pay Timothy B. Blackstone or order, Camanche, Albany and Mendota Railroad Company, by”
The defendant still objected to the introduction of the note in evidence, on the ground that the company had no authority to take and transfer the note in the manner it was taken and transferred, and upon the further ground that the plaintiff should first show that the directors of the company had made a demand upon Foy for the amount of his subscription; and that it should be shown the directors authorized the taking of the note.
The defendant also insisted the company had no power to take the note, and that there was no consideration therefor. But the Circuit Court overruled the objections, and admitted the note in evidence; to which the defendant excepted.
The defendant then offered to prove certain facts by way of a defense to the note. The matters thus offered to be set up are sufficiently explained in the opinion of the court.
The trial resulted in a judgment against Foy, who thereupon took this appeal, and now alleges, that
1. The court erred in permitting the note to go to the jury until it was proved by competent evidence that Happer, the treasurer, had authority to transfer said note.
2. In permitting the note to be given in evidence to the jury until it was proved that the directors had made a demand on defendant below, for his capital stock.
3. In letting the note go to the jury without proof that the directors authorized the taking of it.
4. The company had no power to take said note.
5. There was no consideration for said note.
6. The evidence offered by the defendant below, ought to have been admitted.
Mr. SAMUEL STRAWDER, for the appellant.
Mr. B. C. COOK, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:
All the questions raised on this record have been decided in the case of Goodrich v. Reynolds, Wilder & Co., 31 Ill. 490, except one, and that arises upon the sixth assignment of error, which is, that the court rejected certain evidence offered by the defendant.
It appears from the record, the defendant offered to prove when the bond and coupon notes were given by him to the company, it was agreed between him and the company, acting by A. J. Matson, a director of the company, that the note was to be kept by the company in the possession of Matson as the director and agent of the company, and that the defendant was not to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meholin v. Carlson
......1452; 10 Cyc. 433; 26 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 914; Purdy's Beach on. Private Corp., secs. 252, 253; Foy v. Blackstone, 31. Ill. 538, 83 Am. Dec. 246; Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390, 21 L. ed. 361; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U.S. 45,. 23 L. ed. 203; York Park ......
-
The Peoria v. Bryan
......Hopps, 8 Vt. 94; Hunt v. Weir, 29 Ill. 83; Foy v. Blackstone, 31 Ill. 538; Ludwig v. McKee, 32 Ill. 28. The bonds were detained by collusion, and fraudulently divided between T. and his partner: ......
-
Martineau v. Hanson
......93;. Moseley v. Handford, 10 Barn. & C. 729;. Woodbridge v. Spooner, 3 Barn. & Ald. 235;. Joyner v. Turner, 19 Ark. 690; Foy v. Blackstone, 31 Ill. 538; Curtice v. Hokanson,. 38 Minn. 510; Western Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 54 Neb. 456; Aub. v. Magruder, 10 Calif. 282. See also case. of ......
-
Acme Coal Co. v. Northrup National Bank
......595.) Defenses cannot be urged against a. commercial paper, until it is shown that the endorsee is not. a bona fide holder. (Foy v. Blackstone, 31 Ill. 583,. 83 Am. Dec. 246; McRitchie v. Johnson, 49 Kan. 321,. 30 P. 477; Violet v. Rose, 39 Neb. 660, 58 N.W. 216;. Livingston v. Roberts, ......