Stolp v. Blair

• Decision Date: 30 September 1873
• Citation: 68 Ill. 541,1873 WL 8393
• Parties: HENRY P. STOLPv.JAMES A. BLAIR.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

68 Ill. 541

1873 WL 8393 (Ill.)

HENRY P. STOLP

v.JAMES A. BLAIR.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1873.

APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Aurora; the Hon. RICHARD G. MONTONY, Judge, presiding.

Mr. B. F. PARKS, for the appellant.Messrs. WHEATON, SMITH & MCDOLE, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE SHELDON delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Blair against Stolp, to recover $500, money alleged to have been loaned by the former to the latter. The plaintiff below recovered, and the defendant appealed.

Three certain rulings of the court below in the admission of evidence are assigned for error, as also that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

The first ruling excepted to was, in allowing Blair to testify as to his manner of doing business with other persons in the respect of making loans of money without taking notes. He had testified that, on the 18th of September, 1871, he lent Stolp $500 for six months, and that he took no note. The uncommonness of making a loan of money, of such an amount, for so long a time, might have afforded ground for an unfavorable inference against the truth of the statement of the witness.

In rebuttal of any such inference, we think evidence was not improperly received, that Blair had frequently before, and in the case of various persons, made loans of money without taking any notes.

It is next objected, that Stolp was allowed to be contradicted, as a witness, on a collateral question.

The defendant below not only denied the loan by plaintiff to him, but sought to show, in corroboration of his testimony, that he had no occasion to borrow money at the time, as he had plenty of means, and as showing that, testified that he had received, to be used by him as his own, a large sum of money from Woodman, his brother-in-law. In answer to this, evidence was admitted, against objection, that, on September 28, 1871, Stolp sent by express to Woodman $300. We think the evidence was pertinent in reply to that of Stolp, and not collateral; and though Stolp, on cross-examination, had denied sending this money by express, that would not prevent proving the fact. It was one the plaintiff was entitled to prove, whether Stolp was inquired of as to it or not. It was not merely a contradiction of Stolp upon a collateral matter, as supposed by counsel.

The other ruling excepted to was, in the admission of the following testimony of the witness Bailes: “I borrowed $10 of Blair; am not positive about date, but think it was on Friday of that week (of 18th Sept. 1871). I spoke of giving a note for the money I borrowed, and Blair said: ‘I loaned $500 to Mr. Stolp, and did not take a note; I would not think of taking a note of you for $10.% 7D ”

The witness further stated, Blair said he let Henry Stolp have $500. The 18th of September, the day of the alleged loan, was Monday. It is contended by appellee's counsel that this statement of Blair, of his loan of $500 to Stolp, was properly admitted as rebutting testimony to sustain Blair, after the defendant below had attempted to impair the credibility of Blair on cross-examination, and by testimony contradicting him.

This court, in Gates v. The People, 14 Ill. 434, recognized the existence of a conflict of authority upon the question whether the former declarations of a witness, whose credibility is attacked, may be given in evidence to corroborate his testimony,...