First National Bank of Princeton v. Ficklin

Appellate Court of Illinois

First National Bank of Princeton v. Ficklin

185 Ill. App. 381, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 1091

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 10, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,079

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 Ill. App. 381 (First National Bank of Princeton v. Ficklin) 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

First National Bank of Princeton v. Ficklin, 185 Ill. App. 381, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 1091 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Bills and notes, § 373*—when introduction of note makes prima facie case for plaintiff. Where the execution of a note is not denied, the note when offered in evidence makes a prima facie case for plaintiff, including the fact of plaintiff’s ownership, notwithstanding a stamped indorsement thereon to a third party which, under the statute, the owner was privileged to strike out. 3. Bills and notes, § 375*—proof of consideration. In a suit on a promissory note, proof of consideration is not essential to a prima facie case; want of consideration is an affirmative defense for defendant to establish. 4. Costs, § 67*—damages for prosecuting a writ of error for delay. Ten per centum of the amount of the judgment allowed as statutory damages under R. S. ch. 33, § 23, J. & A. 2737, for suing out and prosecuting a writ of error for delay, it appearing that the contentions for reversal were obviously untenable and devoid of merit.

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

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Bills and notes, § 373*—when introduction of note makes prima facie case for plaintiff. Where the execution of a note is not denied, the note when offered in evidence makes a prima facie case for plaintiff, including the fact of plaintiff’s ownership, notwithstanding a stamped indorsement thereon to a third party which, under the statute, the owner was privileged to strike out. 3. Bills and notes, § 375*—proof of consideration. In a suit on a promissory note, proof of consideration is not essential to a prima facie case; want of consideration is an affirmative defense for defendant to establish. 4. Costs, § 67*—damages for prosecuting a writ of error for delay. Ten per centum of the amount of the judgment allowed as statutory damages under R. S. ch. 33, § 23, J. & A. 2737, for suing out and prosecuting a writ of error for delay, it appearing that the contentions for reversal were obviously untenable and devoid of merit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 Ill. App. 381, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 1091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-of-princeton-v-ficklin-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack