Yocum v. Smith
| Decision Date | 31 January 1872 |
| Citation | 14 Am.Rep. 120,1872 WL 8184,63 Ill. 321 |
| Parties | GEORGE W. YOCUMv.JOHN T. SMITH. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. JOHN A. MCCLERNAND, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, by Smith against Yocum, in the Sangamon circuit court, on a promissory note made by Yocum to the order of T. W. Barbour for $320, payable in one year, dated March 5, 1868, which had been indorsed over to M. Matteson, and by him to Smith, a few days after its date.
On June 8, Smith notified Yocum by mail that he had purchased the note, advising him where he had placed it for payment. March 16, 1869, eleven days after the note was due, Smith, by mail, demanded payment and threatened suit, again giving the amount of the note.
Suit was brought in assumpsit, the declaration containing a special count upon the note and the usual common counts. The defendant below filed sworn pleas of the general issue and non est factum. By consent, the court tried the case. Under the defendant's plea, non est factum, it was proven that the note was made originally for $300, a deed to a patent right, which constituted the consideration of the note, containing the same amount; and in support of his plea, Yocum swore that the note had been altered, after execution and delivery, from $300 to $320, without his authority, knowledge or consent, and that he never ratified the alteration.
On the part of the plaintiff, Smith, it was shown that he purchased the note in good faith and for a valuable consideration, soon after its execution, of Matteson, in the usual course of business, and that though he notified Yocum of the fact and the amount of the note, he received no notice of the alleged alteration, nor any objection, until he had threatened suit after the note became due. He also swore, and was sustained by experts, that the note bore on its face no evidence or appearance of alteration.
Upon trial, the court below gave judgment for the amount of the note as declared on, with interest. The defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled and the case brought up on bill of exceptions.
Messrs. HERNDON & ORENDORFF, for the appellant.
Messrs. STUART, EDWARDS & BROWN, for the appellee.
The note in suit was purchased in good faith by the holder before maturity, and was duly indorsed to him. When the note was signed, a blank space was left between the words “hundred” and “dollars,” which, it is claimed, was filled by adding the words “and twenty.” Experts testified that the note was all in the same handwriting, except the signature, and that there was no appearance which would cause a prudent man to suppose that it had been altered. The original note has been sent up with the record, and there is nothing upon the face of it to indicate that there had been any alteration.
The purchaser was a bona fide holder of the note. It was indorsed to him for value, in the usual course of business, and without notice of any equities between the antecedent parties. It was in form perfect, without any indications of alteration, and was current negotiable paper. There was nothing to induce the belief that there was any infirmity about it, and no proof of bad faith in the holder.
Bills of exchange and promissory notes are commercial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Peoria v. Bryan
...whose negligence caused it: Shipley v. Carroll, 45 Ill. 285; Jones v. Nellis, 41 Ill. 482; Harvey v. Smith, 55 Ill. 224; Yocum v. Smith, 63 Ill. 321; Clark v. Johnson, 54 Ill. 296; Garvin v. Wiswell, 83 Ill. 215; Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. 110; 2 Parsons on Contracts, 42. Corporations, like......
-
Everett v. Marston
... ... on Taxation (2 Ed.), 444; Jaicks v. Sullivan, 128 ... Mo. 177; Inhabitants of Houstonia v. Grubbs, 80 ... Mo.App. 433; Smith v. Barrett, 41 Mo.App. 460. (2) ... Nor is it an incumbrance or charge of any kind before it ... becomes a lien. Cooley on Taxation (2 Ed.), 447; ... its agent ratified such insertion by Crutcher & Welsh ... Yocum v. Smith, 63 Ill. 321; Rennville Co. v ... Gray, 61 Minn. 242; Pulliam v. Withers, 8 Dana ... (Ky.) 98; Stewart v. Bank, 40 Mich. 348; ... ...
-
Rabberman v. Muehlhausen
... ... Ebert, 29 Wis. 194; Richardson v. Schirtz, 59 Ill. 313; Leach v. Nichols, 57 Ill. 273; Munson v. Nichols, 62 Ill. 111; Latham v. Smith, 45 Ill. 25; Taylor v. Atchison, 54 Ill. 196; Sims v. Bice, 67 Ill. 88; Champion v. Ulmer, 70 Ill. 322; Edleman v. Byers, 75 Ill. 367.Appellant was ... Watson, 71 Ill 456; Sims v. Bice, 67 Ill. 88; Mead v. Munson, 60 Ill. 49; Leach v. Nichols, 57 Ill. 273; Taylor v. Atchison, 54 Ill. 196; Yocum v. Smith, 63 Ill. 321; Harvey v. Smith, 55 Ill. 224; Comstock v. Hannah, 76 Ill. 530.Appellant is liable if he knowingly signed a note with a ... ...
-
Aamoth v. Hunter
... ... value, will take it discharged of any defense arising from ... the erasure or from the fact of alteration. Harvey v ... Smith, 55 Ill. 224; Seibel v. Vaughan, 69 Ill ... 257; Elliott v. Levings, 54 Ill. 213; Cornell v ... Nebeker, 58 Ind. 425; Woollen v. Ulrich, 64 ... 370, 21 Am. Rep. 75; Garrard v ... Haddan, 67 Pa. 82, 5 Am. Rep. 412; Rainbolt v ... Eddy, 11 Am. Rep. 152, and notes, 34 Iowa 440; Yocum ... v. Smith, 63 Ill. 321, 14 Am. Rep. 120; Mater v ... American Nat. Bank, 8 Colo.App. 325, 46 P. 221; ... Woollen v. Whitacre, 73 Ind. 198; ... ...