Legal Opinion

Foltz v. Hardin

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1891PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam :

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Milton B. Hardin, against F. P. Foltz and others, to recover a balance claimed to be due on a promissory note, which was as follows:

■“$4200.00. Abingdon, III., March 17, 1886.

“Nine months after date, we, or either of us, promise to pay to M. B. Hardin and S. Givens, administrators of the estate of Jacob Young, forty-two hundred and no-100 dollars, value received, with 7% interest after date.

(Signed) Union Bank of Abingdon,

per Strawther Givens, Prest.,

S. McFarland,

J. H. & W. 0. Gadwallader,

F. P. Foltz.”

The note was endorsed by the payees…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Union Trust Co. v. RigdonIllinois Supreme Court · 1879
  2. McFadden v. FortierIllinois Supreme Court · 1858

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Cottrell v. GersonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1938
  2. MacLachlan v. PeaseIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
  3. City of Plankinton v. GrayCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
  4. Youngquist v. HunterAppellate Court of Illinois · 1922
  5. Miller v. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1899

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API