Grubey v. Nat'l Bank of Illinois

• Decision Date: 14 May 1890
• Citation: 24 N.E. 575,133 Ill. 79
• Parties: GRUBEY v. NATIONAL BANK OF ILLINOIS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

133 Ill. 79

24 N.E. 575

GRUBEY

v.NATIONAL BANK OF ILLINOIS.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 14, 1890.

Appeal from appellate court, first district.

Francis A. Riddle and John S. Stevens, for appellant.

Matthew P. Brady, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the National Bank of Illinois, at Chicago, against William H. Grubey, on a promissory note, as follows: ‘Chicago, Ills., May 9, 1887. Six days after date, I promise to pay to the order of myself one thousand dollars, payable at 113 S. Clark. Value received, with six per cent. per annum until paid. [Signed] WM. H. GRUBEY. [Indorsed] Pay to the order of the National Bank of Illinois, at Chicago. [Signed.] WM. H. GRUBEY.’ The declaration contained one special count on the note, and also the common counts. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and, when the cause was called for trial, plaintiff entered a nolle prosequi as to the common counts. A trial was had before a jury, resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount of the note and interest, which on appeal was affirmed in the appellate court.

On the trial in the superior court the plaintiff read in evidence the note described in the declaration, and the defendant claimed as a defense that the note was given for gambling transactions on the board of trade, and was therefore void. No question is raised on the argument in regard to the ruling of the court on instructions, but it is claimed that the court erred in refusing certain evidence offered by the defendant, and this is the only ground relied upon to reverse the judgment. The defendant was a witness on his own behalf, and he was asked whether or not any grain bought by him as shown by certain statements was received by or delivered to him; the court refused to allow the witness to answer the question; in this is the first error complained of. It will not be necessary to stop to inquire whether the court erred in this regard or not, as the next question propounded to the witness which was answered substantially embraced all contained in the other one, and if the court erred the error did no harm. It was as follows: ‘I will ask you whether or not during the time covered by these statements, that you have seen, you were called on by Mr. Henraton, as your broker, to receive or deliver or pay for any grain? Answer. No, sir.’

It is next caimed that the court erred in refusing to allow the witness to answer the following question: ‘How...