Legal Opinion

Muhlke v. Hegerness

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided December 13, 1894PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Memorandum.—Assumpsit. In the Circuit Court of Ogle County; the Hon. James Shaw, Judge, presiding. Declaration on a promissory note by indorsee; plea of fraud and circumvention; trial by jury; verdict and judgment for defendant; error by plaintiff. Heard in this court at the May term, 1894.

1Opinion of the Court

Mr. Presiding Justice Lacey

delivered the opinion oe the Court.

This was a suit by plaintiff in error as indorsee of a promissory note given by defendant in error to P. Janss, as payee, dated 30th October, 1891, for §75. The evidence showed, not contradicted, that the plaintiff in error purchased the note before maturity for §75, January 5, 1892, of Dr. Peter Janss, the payee, without any notice of defense.

The defendant in error pleaded that the execution of the note was procured by fraud and circumvention practiced on him in obtaining his signature to the note, by representing to him that the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sims v. BiceIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
  2. Swannell v. WatsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  3. Munson v. NicholsIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Richardson v. SchirtzIllinois Supreme Court · 1871

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Green v. WilkieSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
  2. Commercial State Bank v. JudyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1907

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API