Bonner v. Ames

Appellate Court of Illinois

Bonner v. Ames

82 Ill. App. 93, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 642

DecidedMarch 10, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 82 Ill. App. 93 (Bonner v. Ames) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonner v. Ames, 82 Ill. App. 93, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 642 (Ill. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action in debt on an appeal bond. The appellants, defendants below, verified their plea of non est factum, by denial under oath of execution of the bond, as provided by Section 34 of the Practice Act. •

The bond, which is the basis of the suit, was offered in evidence by appellees without any proof of its execution. Appellants objected “ that no foundation had been laid for its introduction,” and that it was incompetent. This objection was overruled, and appellants excepted to the ruling. The bond was admitted in evidence, and the trial resulted in verdict and judgment for appellees.

The bond should not have been admitted without proof of its execution by appellants.

At common law, a party thus offering an instrument in evidence was required to prove its execution before it could be admitted. But, as a matter of convenience, and to lessen the expense of litigation, the General Assembly has dispensed with such proof, where copy of the instrument sued on is filed with the pleadings, unless rendered necessary by a plea denying the execution under oath. And when such denial is made, the party offering the instrument is then required to prove its execution, as at common law, before it can be read in evidence. Zuel v. Bowen, 78 Ill. 234.

The variance resulting from a mistake in the recital of the name of one of appellees in the declaration, can be cured by amendment before another trial.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Sears

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action in debt on an appeal bond. The appellants, defendants below, verified their plea of non est factum, by denial under oath of execution of the bond, as provided by Section 34 of the Practice Act. •

The bond, which is the basis of the suit, was offered in evidence by appellees without any proof of its execution. Appellants objected “ that no foundation had been laid for its introduction,” and that it was incompetent. This objection was overruled, and appellants excepted to the ruling. The bond was admitted in evidence, and the trial resulted in verdict and judgment for appellees.

The bond should not have been admitted without proof of its execution by appellants.

At common law, a party thus offering an instrument in evidence was required to prove its execution before it could be admitted. But, as a matter of convenience, and to lessen the expense of litigation, the General Assembly has dispensed with such proof, where copy of the instrument sued on is filed with the pleadings, unless rendered necessary by a plea denying the execution under oath. And when such denial is made, the party offering the instrument is then required to prove its execution, as at common law, before it can be read in evidence. Zuel v. Bowen, 78 Ill. 234.

The variance resulting from a mistake in the recital of the name of one of appellees in the declaration, can be cured by amendment before another trial.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Ill. App. 93, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonner-v-ames-illappct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack