Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Ill. 475

Rose v. Mortimer

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1856

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1856-06-15

This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note. Plea, non-assumpsit, and similiter. The plaintiff below offered in evidence a promissory note, signed by defendant. The defendant then offered evidence to show a failure of the consideration, for which the note offered in evidence was given. This evidence was excluded by the court. To the exclusion of which evidence, the defendant below excepted, and assigns its exclusion for error.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1908

5 state decisions

20185618601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Catón, J.

¶1This was an action on a promissory note, by an assignee, to which the defendant filed a plea of the general issue. Under this plea the defendant, on the trial, offered to prove a failure of consideration, which the court ruled out, and which is the decision complained of.

¶2The court decided óorrectly. The right to defend a promissory note for a want, or failure, or partial failure of consideration, is conferred by the 10th section of chapter 73, R. S., and that statute requires the defence to be pleaded. There is hardly a volume of our reports, in which cases are not found, where this court has passed upon the sufficiency of such special pleas ; but I do not find that it has before been attempted to set up the defence under the general issue. The statute does.not authorize it, and the court properly ruled out the defence' offered.

¶3The judgment must be affirmed. '

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/17/ill/475 · .json · Public domain