Moore v. Wright
| Decision Date | 30 September 1878 |
| Citation | 90 Ill. 470,1878 WL 10189 |
| Parties | J. F. MOOREv.C. S. WRIGHT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.
On the trial of this case in the circuit court the plaintiff called a witness, who testified that on the second trial of the cause before the justice of the peace the defendant was sworn, and in his testimony admitted that the copy of the note produced by the plaintiff was a true copy of the original and of the indorsements thereon. On cross-examination, the witness stated that the defendant, in the same statement, said he had made a payment of $75 to T. G. Wright on the note, which was not indorsed. This part of the evidence the court, on the motion of the plaintiff, excluded from the jury, and the defendant excepted.
The second of plaintiff's instructions told the jury, “that under the law, the defendant could have (had he desired) denied that he ever acknowledged or admitted that the writing offered in evidence by plaintiff as a copy of the note, was such copy, if the acknowledgment or admission was made after the death of the payee named in the note, if the jury believe, from the evidence, that he (defendant) made any such admission.”
Messrs. HILL & DIBBELL, for the appellant.
Messrs. NEEDHAM & MILLER, for the appellee.
This action was upon a promissory note made payable to Thomas G. Wright, since deceased, and was brought by his administrator originally before a justice of the peace. On the trial before the justice, the note, with its indorsements of payments, was introduced and read as evidence to the jury. Since that trial the original note has not been seen. There is some evidence tending to show it was placed in a memorandum book belonging to defendant, and may have been inadvertently taken away by him, but of that there is no reliable evidence.
On the trial in the circuit court, plaintiff, by way of proving the contents of the lost note, gave in evidence, over the objection of defendant, what he testified was a true copy of the original note and indorsements. It is now said it was error to admit the copy, because the notice to defendant to produce the original said to be in his possession was not sufficient. There is nothing in the record that shows that objection was taken when the copy of the note was offered in evidence, and it can not be made for the first time in this court. But as this judgment is to be reversed for another cause, it will not be necessary to remark further on this branch of the case.
As to the lost note, the testimony of the justice before whom the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fonda v. St. Paul City Railway Co.
... ... defendant. Bleecker v. Johnston, 69 N.Y. 309; ... Miller v. Dayton, 57 Iowa 423; Moore v ... Wright, 90 Ill. 470; Lowe v. Massey, 62 Ill ... 47; Scovill v. Baldwin, 27 Conn. 316; State v ... Fitzgerald, 68 Vt. 125; ... ...
-
The Chicago v. Smith
...attention of the jury thereto. They presented only a partial aspect of the case to the jury, and were erroneous for that reason. Moore v. Wright, 90 Ill. 470. The sixth is as follows: “When a railroad company seeks to avoid the payment of damages caused by the escape of sparks from its loco......
-
Hogue v. Edwards
...should refer to all so as to fairly state the case: St. L. & S. E. R'y Co. v. Britz, 72 Ill. 256; Cushman v. Cogswell, 86 Ill. 62; Moore v. Wright, 90 Ill. 470; Ill. Linen Co. v. Hough, 91 Ill. 63; Moshier v. Kitchell, 87 Ill. 18. The jury should not be required to determine legal propositi......
-
The County of Cook v. Harms
...42 Ill. 300. As to what is necessary to lay a proper foundation for admission of secondary evidence: Sturgis v. Hart, 45 Ill. 104; Moore v. Wright, 90 Ill. 470; Carr v. Minor, 42 Ill. 179; Rankin v. Crow, 19 Ill. 627; Cook v. Stout, 47 Ill. 530; Weiss v. Tiernan, 91 Ill. 27: R. R. Co. v. Ma......