Richards v. Darst
This text of 51 Ill. 140 (Richards v. Darst) 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.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The cases of Brinkley v. Going, Breese, (new ed.) 366, 367, and Kyle v. Thompson et al. 2 Scam. 432, and Parks v. Brown, 16 Ill. 454, are decisive of this case.
The point was the same in each of those cases, and the court held the plaintiff could recover.
And so in Pardee v. Lindley, 31 Ill. 174, it was held, that whatever writing the payee of a note may have placed upon it, he may, while it remains in his hands, erase or otherwise render inoperative. If he has written an assignment upon the note and it remains in Ms hands, he will he deemed not to have parted with his interest in it. No such endorsement would conclude him.
The judgment must he affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
51 Ill. 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-darst-ill-1869.