Stafford v. Fargo
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 1864 WL 3080,35 Ill. 481 |
| Parties | JOHN F. STAFFORDv.ORANGE FARGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
ERROR to Superior Court of Chicago.
Assumpsit by defendant in error against plaintiff in error upon a promissory note of which, with the indorsements thereon, the following is a copy:
+----------------------------------------+
¦“$533 18/100.¦CHICAGO, Sept. 22, 1860.¦
+----------------------------------------+
Due Henrietta A. Lyon or order, five hundred and thirty-three 18/100 dollars on demand, for value received.
JOHN F. STAFFORD.'
HENRIETTA A. LYON,”
“ADDISON P. LYON.”
It appears that Addison P. Lyon, who was then insolvent, being about to form a copartnership with said Stafford, and putting no money into the business, all of which was put in by Stafford, was required by Stafford to deposit with him, Stafford, certain property, worth about $500, as security that Stafford should suffer no loss therein, through him; and the above note was thereupon, at Lyon's request, given by Stafford to his, Lyon's wife (Lyon being known to the public only as an agent of the concern), to evidence the receipt by Stafford of said property. The said property, or its proceeds, was not to be repaid during the continuance of the copartnership, and at its termination only upon condition that Stafford had not, by reason of Lyon's failure to meet his share of any loss sustained by the concern, suffered loss to that amount. Upwards of $1,700 was lost in the firm business.
When the cause was tried, Addison P. Lyon was called by the defendant and examined solely as to when the said note was indorsed by him, whether before or after suit was commenced thereon, and whether it was indorsed by him at the same time it was indorsed by Henrietta A. Lyon, his wife; to which questions respectively the witness replied that his impression was that he indorsed it before this action was commenced; and that it was indorsed by him about a week after his wife had indorsed it. Upon the cross-examination, the plaintiff was allowed, against the defendant's objections, to ask said witness, whether his wife paid to defendant Stafford the money represented in said note; and whether Stafford paid the money to him, the witness, or any other person in his, witness' knowledge; to which questions the witness answered, to the first, that she did not; he, witness, paid it for her; and to the second, that he had not.
The following instruction was asked by the defendant, and refused by the court:
“If the jury believe, etc., that the note sued on in this action was given by defendant to Henrietta A. Lyon and her husband, or either of them, simply as evidence of money received from her or her husband, or both of them, to be held as collateral security for the indemnification of defendant against any loss on or on account of a certain business transaction with said Lyon and said defendant, and for no other consideration, and that defendant had been damnified to the amount of said note and interest on account of said business against which said money was held by defendant as security, and that the plaintiff, at the time when said note was assigned to him by Addison P. Lyon, knew of these facts, and that the amount of said damage continued to defendant, on or on account of said business against which said money was held by defendant as collateral security, at the time when said note fell due, afterwards and now, then they must find for defendant.”
The verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff; and it is assigned as error:
(1) That said note is not supported by a sufficient consideration; and, having been assigned to plaintiff after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millard Maintenance Service Co. v. Bernero
...Handbook on Illinois Evidence § 611.11 at 418 (5th ed. 1990), citing People v. van Dyke (1953), 414 Ill. 251, 111 N.E.2d 165; Stafford v. Fargo (1864), 35 Ill. 481; People v. Hosty (1986), 146 Ill.App.3d 876, 100 Ill.Dec. 356, 497 N.E.2d 334.) "With respect to cross-examination [on a partic......
- Comisky v. Breen
-
Hildebrand v. United Artisans
... ... on points thereby elicited. It is manifest that such practice ... should not be encouraged. Stafford v. Fargo, 35 Ill ... 481. Even though defendant's position on this point were ... tenable, any error that may have been committed in ... ...
-
Waller v. Carter
... ... Stafford v. Fargo, 35 Ill. 481.[8 Ill.App. 515] For the errors indicated the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new ... ...