Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Ill. App. 40

Vehon v. Vehon

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided April 15, 1897

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1897-04-15

<p>1. Consideration—Debt of a Tim'd Person.—A note for the amount ■ of a debt owing by the father of the payer, which the payer is under no obligation, legal or moral, to pay, and upon which the giving of the note has no legal effect, there being no release of the father or extension of credit to him, is without consideration and voidable.</p> <p>2. Same—Fear of Trouble.—Fear of trouble with the payee of a note where there is no evidence to show that such payee had any right to make trouble, can not be moulded into a consideration for such note.</p>

Relies on Heaps v. Dunham

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1897-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1937

5 state decisions

3018971900191019201930decided

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 →

Mr. Justice Gary

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This is an action by the appellee against the appellant upon a promissory note, commenced bv attachment.

¶3The defense is that the note was without consideration, upon which subject the evidence most favorable to the appellee is that the father of 'the appellant was indebted to the appellee, his brother; was in business in Iowa, and the appellant wished to move his father and mother and the goods to Galesburg, Illinois.

¶4There is, at the most, a suggestion in the testimony that the appellant feared that the appellee would make some trouble about such removal, and so with no communication between the brothers, or between the appellant and his father upon the subject, the appellant gave his note to the appellee for the amount of such indebtedness.

¶5There is no hint of any release of the father of the appellant, or any promise to him of extension of credit or forbearance by the appellee.

¶6The transaction is simply that .the appellant gave his note for the amount of a debt owing by his father; a debt which the appellant was under no obligation, legal or moral, to pa3r, and upon which debt the giving of his note had no legal effect.

¶7There was, therefore, no consideration for the note sued upon. Tiedeman Com. Pap., Sec. 170; 2 Randolph Com. Pap., Sec. 466.

¶8Fear of trouble with the appellee as to the goods which the appellant wished to bring to Illinois, with nothing to show that the appellee, had any right to make trouble, can not be moulded into a consideration. Heaps v. Dunham, 95 Ill. 583.

¶9An agreement to forbear or give time to the father of the appellant can not be implied from the fact that the note was payable one year after date, when the case shows clearly that no agreement with him, nor any agreement taking him into "account, was made.

¶10The case is merely that the appellee persuaded the appellant to give his note for the debt his father owed.

¶11There being no cause of action, we need not consider the attachment.

¶12The judgment is reversed without remanding the cause.

/70/illapp/40 · .json · Public domain