Legal Opinion

Heenan v. Howard

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided April 11, 1899PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Assumpsit, on a promissory note. Trial in the County Court of La Salle County; the Hon. H. W. Johnson, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.

1Opinion of the Court

Mr. Presiding Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case, Bridget Howard recovered a judgment by confession in the court below against Frank McGary and Daniel Heenan, which was afterward opened to let in a defense. Defendants pleaded the general issue, and Heenan pleaded specially that he was surety only upon the note in suit, whereof plaintiff had notice, and that when the note came due plaintiff, at the request of McGary, and in consideration of his promise to keep the money secured by said note another year after it was due and to pay interest on said sum annually,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Chapman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Crossman v. WohllebenIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
  3. Dodgson v. HendersonIllinois Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Price v. Dime Savings BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Warner v. CampbellIllinois Supreme Court · 1861

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Fanning v. MurphyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Finn v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Van Cott v. WallUtah Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Harrison v. ThackaberryAppellate Court of Illinois · 1910
  5. Higgins v. McPhersonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1905

3 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