Trowbridge v. Seaman

21 Ill. 101
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1859·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

This action was upon several promissory notes payable “ in currency.” A judgment by default was entered, and the clerk assessed the damages. The objection taken is, that the notes being payable in currency, the clerk could not assess the damages, but that a jury should have been called for that purpose. This same question was raised and decided by this court, in the case of Swift v. Whitney, 20 Ill. R. 144, where it was held, that a note payable in currency was in legal contemplation payable in money, and that it was not necessary that a jury should be called to assess the damages. We do not deem it necessary now to add anything to what was there said in favor of the decision.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Trowbridge v. Seaman, 21 Ill. 101 (Ill. 1859).

21 Ill. 101 (Trowbridge v. Seaman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Osgood v. McConnell
32 Ill. 74 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1863)
Northern Bank v. Zepp
28 Ill. 180 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1862)
Marine Bank v. Rushmore
28 Ill. 463 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1862)