Ensign v. Lehmann

Appellate Court of Illinois

Ensign v. Lehmann

192 Ill. App. 578, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 893

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 11, 1915

DocketGen. No. 20,549

StatusPublished

This text of 192 Ill. App. 578 (Ensign v. Lehmann) 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

Ensign v. Lehmann, 192 Ill. App. 578, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 893 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Fraud, § 19*—when representations of physician are not fraud and misrepresentation. In an action to recover on a note given a physician for medical services, statements of the payee that he was a specialist and cured chronic diseases, that the makers of the note were ill and had certain ailments and he could cure them, are not fraud and misrepresentation which will constitute a defense to the note in the hands of a third person, a holder in due course, even though the payee had no intention of performing his promise. 7. Fraud, § 19*—when promise to do an act without intention of performing not misrepresentation. An agreement to do an act without the intention of doing it is not a misrepresentation of an existing fact. 8. Bills and notes, § 443*—when defense of failure of consideration not established. The allegation in the affidavit of merits in an action to recover on a note given for medical services, that there was a failure of consideration, is not sustained where no evidence is introduced in support thereof. 9. Bills and notes, § 259*—when indorsee a holder in due course. Evidence examined and held to show that plaintiff was a holder in due course of the notes in suit, and took them free from the defenses of fraud and failure of consideration.

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

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Fraud, § 19*—when representations of physician are not fraud and misrepresentation. In an action to recover on a note given a physician for medical services, statements of the payee that he was a specialist and cured chronic diseases, that the makers of the note were ill and had certain ailments and he could cure them, are not fraud and misrepresentation which will constitute a defense to the note in the hands of a third person, a holder in due course, even though the payee had no intention of performing his promise. 7. Fraud, § 19*—when promise to do an act without intention of performing not misrepresentation. An agreement to do an act without the intention of doing it is not a misrepresentation of an existing fact. 8. Bills and notes, § 443*—when defense of failure of consideration not established. The allegation in the affidavit of merits in an action to recover on a note given for medical services, that there was a failure of consideration, is not sustained where no evidence is introduced in support thereof. 9. Bills and notes, § 259*—when indorsee a holder in due course. Evidence examined and held to show that plaintiff was a holder in due course of the notes in suit, and took them free from the defenses of fraud and failure of consideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 Ill. App. 578, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ensign-v-lehmann-illappct-1915.