Legal Opinion

Yates v. Valentine

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1874PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Hancock county; the Hon. Joseph Sibley, Judge, presiding.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scholfield

When a subsequent promissory note is given for the same consideration as a former one, it is a question of fact for the determination of the jury, whether the former note is thereby satisfied. If the subsequent note was executed and accepted by the respective parties for that purpose, the satisfaction is complete. Hart v. Boller, 15 Serg’t & Rawle, 162; Brewer v. The Branch Bank, 24 Alabama, 440; Thatcher v. Dinsmore, 5 Mass. 299; French v. Price, 24 id. 13; Hutchins v. Olcott, 4 Vt. 549; Homes v. Smith, 16 Maine, 177. This is in harmony with the previous rulings of this court upon the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Thacher v. DinsmoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
  2. Hutchins v. OlcuttSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Trego v. Estate of CunninghamIllinois Supreme Court · 1915
  2. First-Trust Joint Stock Land Bank v. HickokIllinois Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Belleville Savings Bank v. BornmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1888

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

Powered by the Exa API