Hoyt v. Jaffray

Illinois Supreme Court

Hoyt v. Jaffray

29 Ill. 104

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1862

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 29 Ill. 104 (Hoyt v. Jaffray) 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

Hoyt v. Jaffray, 29 Ill. 104 (Ill. 1862).

Pincite

Opinion

Walker, J.

This was an actitin of assumpsit, on an instrument for the payment of $1,13.9.92, payable in six months, with current rate of exchange on E w York. It was payable at Miller’s Bank, at Aurora, Illinois, to the order of defendants in error, and expresses on its face, to have been given for value received. The point relied upon to reverse the judgment of the court below, is, that there was no evidence beyond the note itself, of a consideration, to support the averment of the declaration. In support of this position, the case of Lowe v. Bliss, 24 Ill. 168, is referred to as authority. In that case, the rule contended for was announced ; but in subsequent cases, it has been overruled. Bilderback v. Burlingame, 27 Ill. 338, and Hill v. Todd, ante, 101. The words “ value received ” render further proof unnecessary, unless its failure is put in issue by plea. The court below decided correctly in rendering judgment, on the evidence, and it must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Walker, J.

This was an actitin of assumpsit, on an instrument for the payment of $1,13.9.92, payable in six months, with current rate of exchange on E w York. It was payable at Miller’s Bank, at Aurora, Illinois, to the order of defendants in error, and expresses on its face, to have been given for value received. The point relied upon to reverse the judgment of the court below, is, that there was no evidence beyond the note itself, of a consideration, to support the averment of the declaration. In support of this position, the case of Lowe v. Bliss, 24 Ill. 168, is referred to as authority. In that case, the rule contended for was announced ; but in subsequent cases, it has been overruled. Bilderback v. Burlingame, 27 Ill. 338, and Hill v. Todd, ante, 101. The words “ value received ” render further proof unnecessary, unless its failure is put in issue by plea. The court below decided correctly in rendering judgment, on the evidence, and it must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ill. 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-jaffray-ill-1862.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack