Holmstrom v. Oldham Bank

Appellate Court of Illinois

Holmstrom v. Oldham Bank

69 Ill. App. 113, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 286

DecidedMarch 8, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 69 Ill. App. 113 (Holmstrom v. Oldham Bank) 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

Holmstrom v. Oldham Bank, 69 Ill. App. 113, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 286 (Ill. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Mb. Presiding Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellee, the first indorsee of a promissory note for $3G2.50, made by the appellant to Fible & Crabb Distilling Company, brought suit on the note and recovered the judgment for $402.22, which is appealed from. Pleas of failure of consideration, and that appellee took the note after maturity, without consideration, and was a mere volunteer holder thereof, were interposed, to which appropriate replications were filed.

The evidence showed conclusively, that appellee acquired the note by discounting it long before its maturity for its face value, less the discount, in the regular course of business, and without notice of the equities, if any, which may have existed between the maker and the payee.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed the jury t,o find the issues for the plaintiff, and to assess the damages ,at the sum for which judgment was entered. Under the evidence, the instruction was proper; and there was no error in rejecting the evidence offered by the appellant, nor in refusing the instructions asked by him, nor in refusing to permit appellant’s attorney to address the jury in argument after the instruction was given. The case is an exceedingly simple one and the judgment was right. Affirmed.

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

Mb. Presiding Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellee, the first indorsee of a promissory note for $3G2.50, made by the appellant to Fible & Crabb Distilling Company, brought suit on the note and recovered the judgment for $402.22, which is appealed from. Pleas of failure of consideration, and that appellee took the note after maturity, without consideration, and was a mere volunteer holder thereof, were interposed, to which appropriate replications were filed.

The evidence showed conclusively, that appellee acquired the note by discounting it long before its maturity for its face value, less the discount, in the regular course of business, and without notice of the equities, if any, which may have existed between the maker and the payee.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed the jury t,o find the issues for the plaintiff, and to assess the damages ,at the sum for which judgment was entered. Under the evidence, the instruction was proper; and there was no error in rejecting the evidence offered by the appellant, nor in refusing the instructions asked by him, nor in refusing to permit appellant’s attorney to address the jury in argument after the instruction was given. The case is an exceedingly simple one and the judgment was right. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 Ill. App. 113, 1896 Ill. App. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmstrom-v-oldham-bank-illappct-1897.