Miles v. Andrews

• Decision Date: 30 October 1894
• Citation: 153 Ill. 262,38 N.E. 644
• Parties: MILES et al. v. ANDREWS et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

153 Ill. 262

38 N.E. 644

MILES et al.

v.ANDREWS et al.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 30, 1894.

Appeal from appellate court, Third district.

Assumpsit by Philo B. Miles and Charles C. Miles against Robert B. Andrews and Wells Andrews. Defendants obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. 40 Ill. App. 155. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Jack & Tichenor, for appellants.

B. S. Prettyman, J. V. Graff, and T. N. Green, for appellees.

BAKER, J.

This was an action of assumpsit by appellants against appellees upon three promissory notes. The declaration contained three special counts, each describing one of the notes in suit, and also the common counts. The defendants filed two special pleas: First, that the notes were given without any good or valuable consideration; second, that the sole and only consideration upon which they were executed was for money won by plaintiffs from defendant Robert B. Andrews in a certain speculation on the market price of grain, and defendant Wells Andrews signed the notes as surety. On the trial the jury found for the defendants, and judgment was rendered on the verdict. Appellants appealed to the appellate court, where that judgment was affirmed.

A reversal is urged here upon the ground that the trial court admitted improper evidence, and gave improper instructions to the jury on behalf of the defendants. The facts, as shown by the record, are substantially as follows: The transactions out of which the giving of the notes resulted were a series of purchases and sales of wheat on the Chicago Board of Trade, for future delivery, by Milmine, Bodman & Co., members of the board, for appellants, who were brokers for Robert B. Andrews. These transactions were begun in December, 1885, and continued until August, 1888, during which time some 12 purchases and as many sales were made. No wheat was delivered or intended to be delivered in any of the transactions. The result of each transaction was entered on the books of appellants, and a statement thereof sent to Robert B. Andrews as soon as the deal was closed. The losses amounted to about $3,000. Before and during the time of these purchases and sales Robert B. Andrews was engaged in buying and selling grain at Washington, Tazewell county, and sold and delivered grain to appellants, who were carrying on the same business in the city of Peoria; and at the time the first two notes in suit were made he claimed about $450 from them on account of grain so previously sold and delivered, and for which he had drawn on them, the drafts having been dishonored. On October 18, 1886, the two notes for $1,000 each, due in one and two years, bearing 8 per cent. interest, were sent by appellants to Robert B. Andrews, with the request that he sign and procure security on them, to cover losses to that time. They were not executed until the following December, when John Wren, residing in Washington,-a brother-in-law of Philo B. Miles, one of appellants,-at the latter's request, called upon appellees, and procured their execution and delivery. The other note was executed on or after June 20, 1887, to cover losses to that date. On the trial, Wells Andrews, one of appellees, was asked to state what Wren said to the defendants at the time he called on them for the notes, and answered: ‘He and my son were talking together. He says: ‘Bob, you had better sign these notes. It is the best thing you can do. The prospect is very flattering. I am a great bull on wheat. Before the deal will come around, I shouldn't be surprised if it should go out of sight.’ We then went into the office, and I asked him, ‘How do the boys feel about the wheat?’ His answer was, ‘They are bullish on wheat,’ or firm, or something of that kind. After the notes were signed, he said, ‘Bob, I see that that draft is all right.’' Appellants insist that this testimony was incompetent, and that the trial court erred in overruling their objection to the same,-the statement about the draft, because made after the notes were signed, and...