Blatchford v. Milliken
Illinois Supreme Court
Wbit of Ebeob to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was an action of assumpsit, instituted in the court below by Eliphalet W. Blatchford against Isaac L. Milliken, on an alleged guaranty of a note. Blatchford held chattel mortgage securities for a debt due him from one Hughes.
Read the full summary
Wbit of Ebeob to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was an action of assumpsit, instituted in the court below by Eliphalet W. Blatchford against Isaac L. Milliken, on an alleged guaranty of a note. Blatchford held chattel mortgage securities for a debt due him from one Hughes. George F. Crocker owed Hughes, and agreed to release these securities in the hands of Blatchford, to accomplish which he induced Blatchford to agree to accept his note, with guaranty by D’Wolf and Milliken, for them. He (Crocker) then made a note, payable to himself in sixty days, and before indorsing it obtained the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Beckwith
It is the settled law of this State, that a person who is not a party to a promissory note which is to become a valid obligation against the maker upon its delivery to the payee, by writing his name in blank upon the back of the note, is presumed to assent to the obligation of a guarantor. 3 Scam. 437; 3 id. 497; 13 Ill. 682; 14 id. 240; 17 id. 465; 21 id. 636; 25 id. 91. But where the note creates no valid obligation against the maker, and can create none, until it is indorsed and transferred by the payee, the presumption is that a person writing his name in blank upon the back of the note…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Carroll v. WeldIllinois Supreme Court · 1852
- Bogue v. MelickIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by16 opinions
- Trego v. Estate of CunninghamIllinois Supreme Court · 1915
- First National Bank v. PayneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Rothschild v. GrixMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Cromwell v. HewittNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Hately v. PikeIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.