Canadian Bank of Commerce v. McCrea
Citations
- 106 Ill. 281
- 1882 Ill. LEXIS 361
Syllabus
<p>1. Negotiable instruments—warehouse receipts. The statute in relation to negotiable instruments does not embrace warehouse receipts or bills of lading, and instruments of that class. Such instruments are not thereby placed on the same footing, as respects the title vested in the assignee in case of assignment, as bills of exchange and promissory notes. The ruling in Burton v. Curyea, 40 Ill. 320, on this question is adhered to.</p> <p>2. Same—the statute construed as to what instruments are negotiable. The statute relating to negotiable instruments does not embrace covenants or agreements for the performance of individual services in and about property,—mutual, dependent and conditional covenants and agreements to pay money or deliver property upon uncertain contingencies and events,—but applies only to absolute and unconditional promises to pay money or deliver property, or to instruments payable at some time certain, absolutely.</p> <p>3. In order to impart to the paper the quality of negotiability, within the statute, the promise or undertaking must be restricted to the payment of money or the delivery of property at a time that will certainly happen, although it may be unknown in advance when that will be. And although it may be within the power of the party to whom the promise is made to render it certain, by his subsequent act, that the time will happen, this will not be sufficient. It can not depend on his will or pleasure.</p> <p>4. Same—natv/re of the contract evidenced by a warehouse receipt, as depriving it of the qualities of negotiable paper. A warehouse receipt is strictly but the written evidence of a contract between the depositor of grain and the warehouseman. It is an acknowledgment by the latter that he has received and holds in store for the former the amount and description of grain named in the receipt, and from this acknowledgment the law implies certain duties as devolving upon the warehouseman, which become as much a part of the contract
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “[b]y lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct, [the] complaint failed to satisfy [Rule 8’s] minimum standard”
- holding that complaint failed to meet - 31 - minimum pleading standard “[b]y lumping all the defendants together in each claim and providing no factual basis to distinguish their conduct”
- finding as impermissible the lumping of all defendants under each claim without setting forth a factual basis to distinguish their conduct
- granting a motion to dismiss for failure to provide fair notice under Rule 8 in part because “[t]he complaint failed to differentiate among the defendants, alleging instead violations by ‘the defendants’”
- granting motion to dismiss for failure to provide fair notice under Rule 8 in part because “[t]he complaint failed to differentiate among the defendants, alleging instead violations by ‘the defendants’ and failed to identify any factual basis for the legal claims made”
- a pleading that “lump[s] all defendants together in each claim and provid[es] no factual basis to distinguish their conduct” fails to provide the defendant with the requisite Rule 8 notice
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.