Lauferty v. Johnson
Appellate Court of Illinois
Eeeoe to the County Court of Stephenson county; the Hon. H. 0. Hyde, Judge, presiding. The suit was commenced in assumpsit in the county court. The declaration consists of two special counts upon an indorsed promissory note and the consolidated common counts.
Read the full summary
Eeeoe to the County Court of Stephenson county; the Hon. H. 0. Hyde, Judge, presiding. The suit was commenced in assumpsit in the county court. The declaration consists of two special counts upon an indorsed promissory note and the consolidated common counts. The two counts of the declaration declaring the promissory note not demurred to by appellee, who craved oyer of the note which was shown to him in words as follows: “ Rock Run Tp., Stephenson Co., Ill., May 19, 1884. Sixty days after date 1 promise to pay E. G. Webster, or order, two hundred and fifty-seven dollars and seventy-five…
1Opinion of the CourtLacey, J.
The only question we need consider in this case is as to whether the words inserted in the note after the amount of the note itself is mentioned, “ and attorney’s fees,” renders the note non-negotiable. We think it does not. These words “ and attorney’s fees,” must mean, if they mean anything, the attorney’s fees accruing and becoming due for the services of attorney performed in and about the collection of the note. It certainly can not have reference to attorney’s fees due or rendered for any other purpose. If this be so, such attorney’s fees can not become due until the note is collected.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bullock v. TaylorMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Stoneman v. PyleIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
- Hubbard v. HarrisonIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
- Morgan v. EdwardsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Proctor v. BaldwinIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rice v. RankansMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Pitzer v. McCuneAppellate Court of Illinois · 1909