Gordon v. Goodell

• Decision Date: 30 April 1864
• Citation: 1864 WL 3001,34 Ill. 429
• Parties: SETH W. GORDONv.ROBERT GOODELL.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

34 Ill. 429

1864 WL 3001 (Ill.)

SETH W. GORDON

v.ROBERT GOODELL.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1864.

ERROR to Circuit Court of Kankakee County.

In this cause the plaintiff in error, as assignee of two promissory notes executed by defendant in error, having, by virtue of the warrants of attorney thereto attached, entered a judgment thereon by confession against defendant in error for $468.11, and the defendant in error, having been allowed by the court to plead, which he did by pleading the general issue and special pleas setting up usury as to both of said notes, which was denied by plaintiff in error, who, in reply, set up that he was a bona fide assignee thereof, without notice and before their maturity, the cause came on for trial, and defendant, without objection, having testified generally in the cause as to other matters than usury, the following instructions were requested by the plaintiff and refused by the court:

1. That defendant was an incompetent witness to prove the time of assignment of said notes to plaintiff, and plaintiff's knowledge of what constituted the original consideration for said notes; and, there being no evidence in the cause as to the time of such assignment, or plaintiff's knowledge of the original and usurious consideration, a verdict should be returned for plaintiff for the full amount of the judgment by confession.

2. That defendant was incompetent as a witness in his own behalf to prove when said notes were assigned; and that his testimony, so far as it related to the time of their assignment to plaintiff, should be disregarded by the jury, and that if the time of said assignment was not proved by other testimony than that of defendant, a verdict should be found for plaintiff.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for the sum of $103, the judgment by confession being reduced to that amount.

The remainder of the case and the questions raised upon error are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Gookins, Thomas & Roberts, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas P. Bonfield, for defendant in error.

BREESE, J.

Among the errors assigned on this record which we deem material to notice are the following: In refusing plaintiff's motion for leave to submit to a nonsuit; in refusing his motion to vacate the judgment, and in refusing certain instructions asked for by the plaintiff.

The record shows a regular trial, pending before a jury, on issues made up by the parties. After the evidence was closed and before...