Cutting v. Conklin
Illinois Supreme Court
The plaintiff’s declaration contains a single count in assumpsit, in the usual form, on a promissory note, as follows: $300.00. Chicago, Feb’y 22nd, 1860. Five months after date we promise to pay to the order of J. E. Conklan Three Hundred Dollars, at our office, value received, with interest at ten per cent. WALKER & CUTTING. Indorsed, J. E. Conklin. Defendant Walker was not served, and did not plead below.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff’s declaration contains a single count in assumpsit, in the usual form, on a promissory note, as follows: $300.00. Chicago, Feb’y 22nd, 1860. Five months after date we promise to pay to the order of J. E. Conklan Three Hundred Dollars, at our office, value received, with interest at ten per cent. WALKER & CUTTING. Indorsed, J. E. Conklin. Defendant Walker was not served, and did not plead below. Cutting plead general issue, non-assumpsit, and notice of special matter. * At the April term, 1861, of Superior Court, a jury was waived, and the cause was tried by Higgins, Judge, who…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
It is urged, that the plaintiff below employed the singular instead of the plural number, in describing the defendants in his declaration. Whilst this is true in at least two places, yet in the beginning of the count they are described as “ the defendants; ” also, in the breach. In stating the manner in which they executed the note, the averment is, that the “defendant,” by the name and style of “Walker & Cutting,” promised- to pay, etc. This might possibly have been grounds of special demurrer, but not for arrest of judgment, had such a motion been interposed. It is not a variance, as it…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gottlieb v. Alton Grain Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Springer v. HutchinsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1895
- Trainor v. AdamsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894