Hardy v. Rapp
| Decision Date | 17 November 1884 |
| Citation | 1884 WL 10016,112 Ill. 359 |
| Parties | CHARLES M. HARDYv.GEORGE H. RAPP. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District;--heard in that court on writ of error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN A. JAMESON, Judge, presiding.
Mr. CHAS. M. HARDY, pro se.
Mr. JOSEPH PFIRSHING, for the appellee.
This was an action of assumpsit, by the payee against the makers of a promissory note.
The appellant contended, upon the trial in the circuit court, first, that he was a mere surety on the note; second, that, being only such, appellee extended the time of payment on the note, by a valid agreement, without his consent; and third, that, as such surety, at the maturity of the note he notified the holder thereof, in writing, under the statute, to bring suit against the principal maker of the note, otherwise he would claim to be discharged from liability, and that no suit was brought pursuant to such notice. Evidence was submitted upon these questions, to the court, who, by agreement of parties, tried the case without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of appellee for the amount due upon the note.
No questions of law were raised upon the trial in admitting or excluding evidence, and no propositions of law were presented to the court, pursuant to the statute, to be ruled upon. There is, therefore, no question of law arising upon this record for our consideration. The judgment of the Appellate Court affirming that of the circuit court, conclusively settles all questions of controverted fact against appellant. Tibballs v. Libby, 97 Ill. 552; Wrought Iron Bridge Co. v. Commissioners of Highways, 101 Id. 518; Sconce v. Henderson et al. 102 Id. 376; Bennett v. Connelly, 103 Id. 50; Fitch v. Johnson, 104 Id. 111; Edgerton v. Weaver, 105 Id. 43; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Bluhm, 109 Id. 20; Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Ry. Co. v. Lewis, Id. 120.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Alton v. Foster
...131 Ill. 547, 22 N. E. 523;Commercial Nat. Bank v. Cauniff, 151 Ill. 329, 37 N. E. 898;Barber v. Hawley, 116 Ill. 91, 4 N. E. 770;Hardy v. Rapp, 112 Ill. 359;Farwell & Co. v. Shove, 105 Ill. 61;Swain v. First Nat. Bank, 201 Ill. 416, 66 N. E. 220. Appellant, however, very earnestly contends......
-
La Salle Cnty. v. Milligan
...Libby, 97 Ill. 552;Hobbs v. Ferguson's Estate, 100 Ill. 232;Stock Yards v. Ferry Co., 102 Ill. 514;Farwell v. Shove, 105 Ill. 61;Hardy v. Rapp, 112 Ill. 359;Association v. Hall, 118 Ill. 169, 8 N. E. Rep. 764; McIntyre v. Sholty, 121 Ill. 660, 13 N. E. Rep. 239; Montgomery v. Black, 124 Ill......
-
American Exch. Nat. Bank v. Chicago Nat. Bank
... ... 518;Stock-Yards v. Ferry Co., 102 Ill. 514;Fitch v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 111;Edgerton v. Weaver, 105 Ill. 43; Farwell v. Shove, Id. 61; Hardy v. Rapp, 112 Ill. 359;Barber v. Hawley, 116 Ill. 91, 4 N. E. Rep. 770; Association v. Hall, 118 Ill. 169, 8 N. E. Rep. 764: McIntyre v. Sholty, 121 ... ...
-
Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hall
... ... v. Commissioners of Highways of Utica, 101 Ill. 518;Fitch v. Johnson, 104 Ill. 111;Edgerton v. Weaver, 105 Ill. 43; Farwell v. Shove, Id. 61; Hardy v. Rapp, 112 Ill. 359;Barber v. Hawley, 116 Ill. 91, 4 N. E. 770;Association v. Hall, 118 Ill. 169, 8 N. E. 764;McIntyre v. Sholty, 121 Ill. 660, 13 ... ...