Legal Opinion
Ward v. Yancey
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided October 5, 1898PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Assumpsit, on a due-bill. Trial in the County Court of Macoupin County; the Hon. Balfour Cowen, Judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Harker
This was a suit in assumpsit by the administratrix of the estate of A. H. Yancey upon a due-bill, reading as follows:
“ $420.00. Carlinville, Illinois, April 11, 1894.
Due A. H. Yancey, for his services as attorney, $420. .
his
Owen X Ward. mark.
Witness to mark:
J. M. Dugger.”
Upon the pleas of non assumpsit, non est factum, and that the due bill was procured by fraud and circumvention, a trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment for $420 for appellee.
The first point urged for a reversal of the judgment is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance. The motion…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jennings v. McConnelIllinois Supreme Court · 1855
- Morrison v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1889
- Ross v. PaysonIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Laybourn v. Bray ShiffletCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919
- Comerford v. LoewenbeinAppellate Court of Illinois · 1923
- Harney v. Estate of McCannAppellate Court of Illinois · 1912