Morton v. Tenny

16 Ill. 494
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 Ill. 494 (Morton v. Tenny) 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
Morton v. Tenny, 16 Ill. 494 (Ill. 1855).

Opinion

Scates, 0. J.

The note is sufficiently described in substance and legal effect; and this, we think, is all that can be required, to entitle the party to read it in evidence. It may be, and doubtless is true, that plaintiff could make a legal tender, and by it stop interest upon such a note as is described in the declaration, before the day of- payment therein. Tet that will not alter the legal effect of its terms. For it would not bo duo, nor could the owner maintain suit until .the day named. So the words import no obligation, arc not mutual, and consequently do not determine, import, or describe any characteristic of it, or its legal effect as a contract. If the doctrine of substantive variances is once carried beyond this test, it will be difficult to fix boundaries to its application. We do not feel willing or justified in entering upon speculative differences, and can only sanction those that may affect the merits of the case,'or be demanded by special averments.

Judgment affirmed. ■

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

Related

Bates v. Leclair
49 Vt. 229 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1877)
Tipton v. Utley
59 Ill. 25 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Ill. 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-tenny-ill-1855.