Weeger v. Mueller

Decided May 23, 1902

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1902-05-23

1. Promissory Notes— What Instruments Are Not.—An instrument in the words and figures following, is not a promissory note : “ Chicago, Sept. 15, 1897. M. Magdalena Mueller, In Account with International Building Loan and Investment Union.......................... $3,593.06 Cr. by.......................................... 743.50 $1,849.56 Chicago, III., 9-17,1897. I promise and order, to pay above amount in full $1,849.56, eighteen hundred and forty-nine 56-100 dollars. Magdalena Mueller.”

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1912

1 state decisions

Relies on Adams v. King

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1902-05-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Waterman

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The instruments offered in evidence, unless payable to bearer or to some person therein named, are not promissory notes. Walters v. Short, 5 Gil. 252-259; Mayo v. Chenoweth, Breese, 200; Smith v. Bridges, Breese, 18; Adams v. King, 16 Ill. 169.

¶3If the instruments can be construed as promises to pay the International Loan and Investment Union, see Adams v. King, 16 Ill. 169; neither of them was indorsed by it, and hence no recovery could be had thereon by appellant.

¶4The statute does not permit an amendment substituting a new party for the one in whose name a suit is brought.

¶5The court properly refused to allow such “amendment” to be made.

¶6The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.