Korsoski v. Foster
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit commenced before a justice of the peace in and for the county of McHenry, by summons to “ Isaac Korsoski & Co.” to answer the complaint of Nathan H. Foster, etc. Judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $99.60, and costs of suit, defendant insisting that the justice had no jurisdiction in the case. Appeal taken by the defendants to the Circuit Court of McHenry county.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit commenced before a justice of the peace in and for the county of McHenry, by summons to “ Isaac Korsoski & Co.” to answer the complaint of Nathan H. Foster, etc. Judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $99.60, and costs of suit, defendant insisting that the justice had no jurisdiction in the case. Appeal taken by the defendants to the Circuit Court of McHenry county. The pláintiff below, to maintain the issues on his part, read in evidence a note, of which the following is a copy : $100. Marengo, June 1st, 1856. Mine months after date we promise to pay…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
The only question in this ease is, whether the indoi’sement on the note, which reduced the amount due upon it to a sum within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, was a fictitious credit. Were it now an open question in this court, we should hesitate long before adopting the rule which has been laid down, that the holder of a note cannot release so much of it to the maker, without any consideration, as will bring it within the jurisdiction of a justice. If a creditor chooses voluntarily to release and forgive a part of the debt, which it was the duty of the debtor to pay, it seems…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wright v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Stewart v. Thompson & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1890
- Witt v. HerethDistrict Court, D. Indiana · 1875