Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Ill. 180

Frye v. Tucker

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1860

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1860-04-15

This was a suit brought upon a promissory note, before a justice of the peace, before whom default was made, and judgment and appeal to the Circuit Court. . The transcript of the justice of the peace is in these words: “Nathan Tucker & 1 Henry Mansfield ( ShitiTerye. ) In assumpsit. Note -filed for $226.40.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1932

4 state decisions

2018601870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Breese, J.

¶1That a railroad company can take a promissory note and negotiate it in the ordinary course of their business, cannot be questioned. It is a power inherent in all such corporations. The assignment by the company, was prima facie their act through their authorized officer. If it was not their act, it should have been denied by affidavit. McIntire v. Preston, 5 Gilm. 60.

¶2The entry on the docket of the justice of the peace identified the note, and was sufficient. But if it was not, it could make no difference, as on the appeal the case is tried de novo in the Circuit Court, all formal objections of every kind being overlooked, the only inquiry being, had the justice of the peace jurisdiction. Swingley v. Haynes, 22 Ill. R. 216.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/24/ill/180 · .json · Public domain