Kurz v. Suppiger
| Decision Date | 28 February 1886 |
| Citation | 18 Ill.App. 630,18 Bradw. 630 |
| Parties | JACOB KURZ, Impl'd, etc.,v.BERNARD SUPPIGER. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. WM. H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed April 15, 1886.
Mr. WM. P. BRADSHAW, for plaintiff in error; that when the note matured, it constituted but one cause of action, but one demand, and more than one suit could not be maintained for its recovery, cited Mattock v. Krome, 78 Ill. 110; Nickerson v. Rockwell, 90 Ill. 460; Dulaney v. Payne, 101 Ill. 325.
Mr. THOMAS J. RICHARDSON, for defendant in error; that a suit and judgment for interest upon a promissory note, where both principal and interest are due, is not a bar to a subsequent action to recover a judgment for the principal sum, and that a note due one year after date, “with eight per cent. annual interest from date until paid,” is not an entire contract, but contains two separate and distinct obligations--one to pay the principal and the other to pay the interest, cited Dulaney v. Payne, 101 Ill. 325; Wehrly v. Morfoot, 103 Ill. 183; Sparhawk v. Wells, 6 Gray, 163; Andover Savings Bank v. Adams, 1 Allen, 38.WILKIN, J.
On the 20th day of October, 1882, plaintiff in error and Martin J. Scott made their promissory note for one thousand dollars, payable to defendant in error, on or before October 20, 1883. The interest clause in the note is in this language: “with eight per cent. annual interest from date until paid.” On the first of November, 1883 (ten days after the note became due), the defendant in error sued before a justice of the peace for the interest on said note for one year. He obtained judgment on the 16th of November, 1883, and on the 6th of December following, the same was paid in full. This suit was brought on the 18th of February, 1884, on the same note, and the former recovery pleaded. Defendant in error recovered judgment for the principal of the note and interest from October 20, 1883, amounting to $1,163.78 and for costs.
If the judgment obtained before the justice of the peace is a bar to this action, then the judgment of the circuit court is wrong; otherwise it is right and must be affirmed. The former recovery was properly pleaded, and no objection was made to the evidence.
The difficulties which might be encountered in the determination of this question on general principles are overcome by the decisions of our Supreme Court, and we have only to follow...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank v. Kirby
...transaction. The plaintiff also introduced, without objection, the opinion of one of the Appellate Courts of Illinois (Kurz v. Suppiger, as reported in 18 Ill. App. 630), in which it was held that the interest clause in a note, reading, "With S. per cent. annual interest from date until pai......
- Sullivan v. People Ex Rel.