Legal Opinion

Honeyman v. Jarvis

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1872PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mercer county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice McAllister

This was assumpsit, by the original payee of a promissory note, against the makers, one of whom, the appellant, filed three special pleas, to all of which the court below sustained a general demurrer. The 'sufficiency of. these pleas is the only matter for decision. The first plea, after the formal part, is in these words: “And there was no consideration for said note, and that said defendant was not indebted to said plaintiff at the time of giving said note, upon any consideration whatever; and that the said promise of said defendant was a mere naked promise without any consideration…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Vanlandingham v. RyanIllinois Supreme Court · 1855
  2. Parks v. HolmesIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
  3. Kirkpatrick v. TaylorIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
  4. Jones v. BuffumIllinois Supreme Court · 1869
  5. Smith v. DotyIllinois Supreme Court · 1860

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. United States National Bank v. ChappellMontana Supreme Court · 1924
  2. McMillan v. GardnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
  3. Miles v. AndrewsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1891
  4. Sheldon v. LewisIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Green v. JenningsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1913

7 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