Knight v. Hurlbut

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtSCHOLFIELD
Citation1874 WL 9091,74 Ill. 133
PartiesGEORGE C. KNIGHTv.E. W. HURLBUT et al.
Decision Date30 September 1874

74 Ill. 133
1874 WL 9091 (Ill.)

GEORGE C. KNIGHT
v.
E. W. HURLBUT et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.


WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. N. J. PILLSBURY, Judge, presiding.

Mr. M. B. WRIGHT, and Mr. L. H. HAMLIN, for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. DOYLE & KING, for the defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE SCHOLFIELD delivered the opinion of the Court:

The evidence, as preserved in the record, shows, with reasonable certainty, that the note which is the subject of the present controversy, was signed by the defendants, as sureties, in fact,

[74 Ill. 134]

and sent by them to the plaintiff, under the agreement that he was to procure it to be signed by their father, and then accept it in liquidation of certain of his indebtedness; and that he neglected to obtain their father's signature, or to present the note to him for that purpose.

The note never having been assigned, the only question is, can the plaintiff recover on it, in direct violation of the terms of the agreement upon which it was signed and intrusted to him?

As between the parties the note was imperfect, until it was signed by the principal. It was not placed in the plaintiff's hands, there to remain until a contingency should happen, whereby it was to become obligatory, but it was intrusted to him to be delivered to the principal for his signature, after which, upon his redelivering it to him, it was to become obligatory, but not until then. All that preceded the signing and delivery of the note by the principal were but so many steps in its execution.

Treated as a promissory note from the defendants alone, to the plaintiff, it is, moreover, without consideration.

The judgment is authorized by the evidence, and is in conformity with Stricklin v. Cunningham, 58 Ill. 295. See also Seymour v. Cowing, 1 Keyes (N. Y.), 534; Miller v. Gambie, 4 Barb. 146; Edwards on Bills, 186.

Judgment affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • McClintock v. Ayers, 1344
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 1, 1927
    ...upon the condition must show that the obligee or payee had knowledge thereof before he acted in faith of the writing. Knight v. Hurlbut, 74 Ill. 133; New Home Sewing Mach. Co. v. Simon, 104 Wis. 120, 80 N.W. 71; Williston on Contracts, Sec. 1244; 28 C. J. 914-915. On the distinction between......
  • Bow v. R. & N. Oil Gas Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 30, 1926
    ...390; Selma Sav. Bank v. Harlan, 167 Iowa 673, 149 N.W. 882; W. J. Lemp Brewing Co. v. Secor, 21 Okla. 537, 96 P. 636; Knight v. Hurlbut, 74 Ill. 133; Belleville Sav. Bank v. Bornman, 124 Ill. 200, 16 N.E. 210; Seattle v. L. H. Griffith Realty & Bank Co., 28 Wash. 605, 68 P. 1036; Mitchell v......
  • Mitchell v. Altus State Bank, Case Number: 1611
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • March 12, 1912
    ...obligation is void." ¶9 In addition to the numerous cases cited in that opinion, in support of the rule announced, see Knight v. Hurlbut, 74 Ill. 133; Belleville Sav. Bank v. Bornman, 124 Ill. 200, 16 N.E. 210; Coffman v. Wilson, 59 Ky. 542; Bivins v. Helsley, 61 Ky. 78; Perry v. Patterson,......
  • Belleville Sav. Bank v. Bornman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 25, 1887
    ...with notice of the condition, become obligatory until the condition be performed. Stricklin v. Cunningham, 58 Ill. 293;Knight v. Hurlbut, 74 Ill. 133;Perry v. Patterson, 5 Humph. 133, 42 Amer. Dec. 424; Benton v. Martin, 52 N. Y. 574;State Bank v. Evans, 15 N. J. Law, 155, 28 Amer. Dec. 404......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • McClintock v. Ayers, 1344
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 1, 1927
    ...upon the condition must show that the obligee or payee had knowledge thereof before he acted in faith of the writing. Knight v. Hurlbut, 74 Ill. 133; New Home Sewing Mach. Co. v. Simon, 104 Wis. 120, 80 N.W. 71; Williston on Contracts, Sec. 1244; 28 C. J. 914-915. On the distinction between......
  • Bow v. R. & N. Oil Gas Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 30, 1926
    ...390; Selma Sav. Bank v. Harlan, 167 Iowa 673, 149 N.W. 882; W. J. Lemp Brewing Co. v. Secor, 21 Okla. 537, 96 P. 636; Knight v. Hurlbut, 74 Ill. 133; Belleville Sav. Bank v. Bornman, 124 Ill. 200, 16 N.E. 210; Seattle v. L. H. Griffith Realty & Bank Co., 28 Wash. 605, 68 P. 1036; Mitchell v......
  • Mitchell v. Altus State Bank, Case Number: 1611
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • March 12, 1912
    ...obligation is void." ¶9 In addition to the numerous cases cited in that opinion, in support of the rule announced, see Knight v. Hurlbut, 74 Ill. 133; Belleville Sav. Bank v. Bornman, 124 Ill. 200, 16 N.E. 210; Coffman v. Wilson, 59 Ky. 542; Bivins v. Helsley, 61 Ky. 78; Perry v. Patterson,......
  • Belleville Sav. Bank v. Bornman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 25, 1887
    ...with notice of the condition, become obligatory until the condition be performed. Stricklin v. Cunningham, 58 Ill. 293;Knight v. Hurlbut, 74 Ill. 133;Perry v. Patterson, 5 Humph. 133, 42 Amer. Dec. 424; Benton v. Martin, 52 N. Y. 574;State Bank v. Evans, 15 N. J. Law, 155, 28 Amer. Dec. 404......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT