¶1delivered the opinion of the court.
185 Ill. App. 622
Croft v. Beecher
Decided April 1, 1914
Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1914-04-01
<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Contracts, § 192*—when memorandum following signature or appearing on baclc of instrument construed as part of the agreement. In construing a contract any memorandum either following the signature or on the back or margin of the instrument, made by the agreement of the parties or with their knowledge and acquiescence, contemporaneously with its execution must be treated as forming part of the contract, the same as if it was in the body of the instrument; and where there is no claim or proof that such memorandum was not on the instrument when it was executed and delivered, it will be presumed to have been made contemporaneously with the instrument.</p> <p>2. Corporations, § 113*—assignability of subscription agreement for stoclc. A subscription agreement for stock in which payment tor the stock is conditioned upon the issuance of the stock, held not a negotiable instrument so that upon assignment thereof the assignee would acquire a legal interest enforceable in courts of law.</p> <p>3. Bills and notes, § 100*—essentials to negotiability. In order that an instrument shall be negotiable it must amount to an independent promise to pay at all events, at a certain time, to a definite person, a definite amount without condition.</p> <p>4. Bills and notes, § 129*—sufficiency of indorsement to transfer negotiable instrument. An assignment of a negotiable instrument by a written indorsement of the agents of the owner without signing as agents of the owner, held not to transfer title.</p> <p>5. Appeal and ebbor, § 969*—when certificate of stock not presented for review. A certificate of stock cannot be considered on review where it was not introduced in evidence or in some way preserved in the record.</p> <p>6. Contracts, § 358*—when affidavit of merits insufficient to put in issue execution of instrument. An affidavit of merits stating that “said alleged contract was never fully executed’’ because a certain payment was not made, held not to put in issue the execution of the contract.</p>
Affirmed · Decided 1914-04-01