Perez v. Janota, Gen. No. 52806
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Citation | 246 N.E.2d 42,107 Ill.App.2d 90 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 52806 |
| Parties | , 6 UCC Rep.Serv. 357 Sylvia PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald JANOTA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1969 |
Page 42
v.
Donald JANOTA, Defendant-Appellant.
[107 Ill.App.2d 91] Charles Kraut, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.
No appearance for plaintiff-appellee.
DEMPSEY, Justice.
The defendant-appellant, Donald Janota, appeals from a judgment entered against him on a written instrument. The instrument was signed:
'Pyramid Electronics
Donald H. Janota'
and acknowledged a $1,000.00 indebtedness to Alex Kozil with interest payable at 5% Per annum. Kozil assigned the note to the plaintiff-appellee, Sylvia Perez.
Janota contends that the note was not a negotiable instrument, that it was chargeable to Pyramid Electronics only and that Sylvia Perez was not a holder in due course.
[107 Ill.App.2d 92] The plaintiff-appellee has not countered these contentions; no appellee's brief has been filed in this court. In this situation we could accept the appellant's contentions as correct and summarily reverse the judgment of the trial court. 541
Page 43
Briar Place Corp. v. Harman, 46 Ill.App.2d 1, 196 N.E.2d 498 (1964). On the other hand, if justice seems to require it, we may examine the points raised by the appellant to ascertain if they merit reversing the judgment. Matyskiel v. Bernat, 85 Ill.App.2d 175, 228 N.E.2d 746 (1967); Werbeck v. Werbeck, 70 Ill.App.2d 279, 217 N.E.2d 502 (1966). In this case we will exercise our discretion and will consider the merits of the appeal.Janota's theory of the case is that the trial court erred in finding that the note was a negotiable instrument and in not considering certain defenses raised by him, among them that he signed the note in a representative capacity and that Sylvia Perez was not a holder in due course.
The record does not support these claimed errors. Neither a report of proceedings nor an agreed statement of facts has been filed in this court. We do not know what findings were made by the trial court, what defenses were considered or what evidence was presented.
A party prosecuting an appeal must furnish the material essential to the disposition of the appeal. Matters de hors the record cannot be considered. In the absence of a report of proceedings or an agreed statement of facts it is presumed that the evidence supported the trial court's decision. Houswerth v. Seidel, 47 Ill.App.2d 112, 197 N.E.2d 271 (1964).
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Dental Capital Corp., 84-872.
...Donaghey v. Executive Funding Corporation, 45 Ill.App.3d 951, 953, 4 Ill.Dec. 536, 538, 360 N.E.2d 472, 474 (1977); Perez v. Janota, 107 Ill.App.2d 90, 91, 246 N.E.2d 42, 43 8. In our view, the fact that appellants signed the instrument on a line above the legend "If Corporation, by (Vice) ......
-
Mandarino v. Village of Lombard, 80-190
...Ill.Dec. 730, 732-733, 403 N.E.2d 1334, 1336-37), and is based on alleged facts which are de hors the record. Perez v. Janota (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 90, 92, 246 N.E.2d 42, 43; Iczek v. Iczek (1963), 42 Ill.App.2d 241, 249, 191 N.E.2d 648, The judgment of the Circuit Court of DuPage County i......
-
Witter v. Winter, 73--427
...may, if it chooses, consider and determine the case on its merits. (2 I.L.P. Appeal and Error, ch. 10, § 560; Perez v. Janota (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 90, 246 N.E.2d 42; Daley v. Jack's Tivoli Liquor Lounge, Inc. (1969), 118 Ill.App.2d 264--275, 254 N.E.2d 814; Lynch v. Wolverine Ins. Co. (19......
-
Fox v. Suit Links, Limited, 54909
...the case on its merits. Daley v. Jack's Tivoli Page 686 Liquor Lounge, Inc., 118 Ill.App.2d 264, 254 N.E.2d 814; Perez v. Janota, 107 Ill.App.2d 90, 246 N.E.2d 42; Matyskiel v. Bernat, 85 Ill.App.2d 175, 228 N.E.2d 746. The issue is whether defendant submitted itself to the personal jurisdi......