Legal Opinion

Hall v. Burton

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1862PublishedCited by 2 opinions

This was an action of debt by Jonathan P. Burton, the defendant in error, upon two promissory notes, made at Philadelphia by the defendant below, payable to his own order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff below. The declaration contained four special counts upon the notes, and the common counts for money lent, etc., paid, had and received, and found to be due, etc.

Read the full summary

This was an action of debt by Jonathan P. Burton, the defendant in error, upon two promissory notes, made at Philadelphia by the defendant below, payable to his own order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff below. The declaration contained four special counts upon the notes, and the common counts for money lent, etc., paid, had and received, and found to be due, etc. The defendant below filed a general and special demurrer to the four special counts, and to the eighth count of the declaration; and a plea of non-assumpsit to the fifth, sixth and seventh counts. The Circuit Court overruled…

1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.

This was an action of debt instituted in the court below, on two promissory notes. They were executed by plaintiff in error, payable to his own order, and were indorsed by him to defendant in error. It is urged, as a ground of reversal, that the notes never became valid and binding negotiable instruments, under our statute, for the want of a payee, and that their subsequent indorsement by the maker, gave to them no vitality or legal effect as promissory notes. In the case of Wilder v. De Wolf, 24 Ill. 191, this court held, that whilst such K a note is inoperative until it is negotiated, yet,…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Consolidated Motors Co. v. UrschelSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
  2. McAuliff v. ReuterAppellate Court of Illinois · 1895

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API