Roche v. Day
Appellate Court of Illinois
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit brought by appellee as the payee, against appellant as the maker, upon two promissory notes, both bearing date at Chicago, November 6, 1883, one payable in eight and the other in twelve months after date.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Elliott Anthony, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit brought by appellee as the payee, against appellant as the maker, upon two promissory notes, both bearing date at Chicago, November 6, 1883, one payable in eight and the other in twelve months after date. The pleas were the general issue and special pleas, setting up in substance and effect, dealings by the plaintiff as member of the Board of Trade of Chicago, on behalf of the defendant, in grain, under and in pursuance of the mutual, unlawful agreement of the parties…
1Opinion of the CourtMcAllister, P. J.
We are of opinion that, as the case stood upon the evidence, the admission in evidence, against the objection of the defendant below, of the statements of A. H. Bliss & Co., in respect to the delivery of corn, was prejudicial error. It involved an act of which the defendant was in no respect cognizant, and in which he did not participate. A. H. Bliss & Co. were strangers. The defendant was entitled to have all evidence against him given upon oath, and the witnesses subject to cross-examination. Such evidence was res inter alias aeta. The general rule is, that “an admission by a stranger can…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Warner v. PriceNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- First National Bank v. MansfieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
- Cutbush v. GilbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1818
3Cited by2 opinions
- Carter v. CarterAppellate Court of Illinois · 1890
- West Chicago Street Railway Co. v. MorasAppellate Court of Illinois · 1903