Henderson v. Davisson

41 N.E. 560, 157 Ill. 379
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 14, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 41 N.E. 560 (Henderson v. Davisson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henderson v. Davisson, 41 N.E. 560, 157 Ill. 379 (Ill. 1895).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the-court:

The note having matured and suit been instituted thereon, if a judgment is rendered no subsequent holder-can thereafter maintain a recovery on the same. (Middleton v. Griffith, 31 Atl. Rep. N. J. 405.) It is a matter with which the defendant has no concern as to rights between the plaintiff and another in the beneficial interest in the judgment, unless his defense is set off, payment, etc. Parks v. Brown, 16 Ill. 454.

Possession of the note is prima facie evidence of ownership, and a payee or endorsee in possession may recover, notwithstanding an endorsement of his name on the back thereof. (Gillham v. State Bank, 2 Scam. 245; Laflin v. Sherman, 28 Ill. 391; Palmer v. Gardiner, 77 id. 143; Best v. Nokomis Nat. Bank, 76 id. 608.) Notwithstanding the endorsement, the plaintiff, when the note again comes to his possession, may disregard the endorsement or strike it out. Its existence does not defeat a recovery. Parks v. Brown, 16 Ill. 454; Richards v. Darst, 51 id. 140; Humphreyville v. Culver, Page, Hoyne & Co. 73 id. 485; Palmer v. Gardiner, supra; Best v. Nokomis Nat. Bank, supra.

The purpose for which the note was delivered to the plaintiff, with the manner of the endorsements, was sufficient to authorize suit in the plaintiff’s name.

The third proposition stated a fact shown by the evidence, and ignores the fact of the return of the note to the plaintiff, and possession, etc. The second and fourth propositions have the same vice. It was not error to refuse those propositions.

The note was admissible in evidence, and it was not error to enter judgment thereon. Nor .was it error in the Appellate Court to affirm that judgment.

A motion is entered in this court to affirm the judgment and assess ten per cent damages because the appeal is alleged to be taken for delay. That motion can not be sustained under the questions presented on this record. Questions of law are here presented.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Miller v. Swanson
213 N.E.2d 294 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1965)
First Securities Co. v. Schroeder
114 N.E.2d 426 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1953)
Joslyn v. Joslyn
54 N.E.2d 475 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1944)
Schmoldt v. Chicago Stone Setting Co.
33 N.E.2d 182 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1941)
Albers v. Dressel
30 N.E.2d 765 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1940)
Peoples Trust & Savings Bank v. Schmitt
6 N.E.2d 444 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1937)
Vermont Evaporator Co. v. Taft
181 A. 100 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1935)
Dillon v. Elmore
198 N.E. 128 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1935)
National Bank of Bay Ridge v. Albers
244 A.D. 127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)
Spiller v. Riva
278 Ill. App. 334 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1935)
Tampa Investment & Securities Co. v. Taylor
272 Ill. App. 541 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1933)
Boller v. Feid
260 Ill. App. 488 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1931)
Hoff v. Dougherty
243 Ill. App. 159 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1927)
Burns v. Landrum
238 Ill. App. 191 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1925)
Evangelical Lutheran St. Stephan's Congregation v. Bishop
213 Ill. App. 137 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1919)
Estate of Teeple v. Savage
196 Ill. App. 378 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1915)
Waldock v. Winkler
1915 OK 729 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Lyman v. Kline
128 Ill. App. 497 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1906)
Pierpont v. Johnson
104 Ill. App. 27 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
Gilmore v. German Savings Bank
89 Ill. App. 442 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 N.E. 560, 157 Ill. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-davisson-ill-1895.