Springer v. Hutchinson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Springer v. Hutchinson

59 Ill. App. 80, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 141

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 3, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 Ill. App. 80 (Springer v. Hutchinson) 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

Springer v. Hutchinson, 59 Ill. App. 80, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 141 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

If two names, according to the ordinary rules of pronouncing the English language, may be sounded alike, without doing violence to the letters found in the variant orthography, the names are idem sonans, and the variance is prima faeie immaterial.

Courts are not fastidious in enforcing absolute precision in respect to orthography. Books v. State, 83 Ala. 79; Donnell v. United States, 1 Morris (Iowa) 141; Capan v. The People, 58 Ill. 163; Cutting v. Conklin, 28 Ill. 506; Donald v. People, 47 Ill. 534; Rivard v. Gardner, 39 Ill. 126; McGregor v. Balsh, 17 Vt. 562; State v. Patterson, 2 Iredell 346; Foster v. State, 1 Tex. App. 533. Barnstein and Burnstein are idem sonans.

There was prima facie no variance between the note offered in evidence and that described in the declaration.

The amendment was unnecessary, and the application for continuance properly refused.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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