Hodges v. Nash

Citations

• 141 Ill. 391
• 31 N.E. 151

Syllabus

<p>1. Accommodation paper—want of consideration—effect as defense. In a suit upon a note, the fact that the note was executed by the defendant without consideration, and for the accommodation of a third person, to be used by the latter as a collateral, and was to be returned to the defendant at or before maturity, and that the plaintiff had notice of the character of such note as an accommodation note, will not constitute a defense, when it is not further shown that the plaintiff’s title to the note was in any degree inconsistent with the purposes for which it was executed.</p> <p>2. In such case, if the plaintiff was the very party with whom the third person was to use the note as collateral, the want of consideration, as between the original parties to the instrument, will be no defense to it in the plaintiff’s hands. The fact that a holder for value knows that the instrument is accommodation paper, does not affect the liability of the accommodation maker,“for the money paid out in the negotiation of the paper is a sufficient consideration to bind the maker.</p> <p>3. Same—pledged as security—right of pledgee. An accommodation note may be pledged as security, if such pledge is not inconsistent with the purposes for which the paper was executed; and the pledgee is deemed to be a holder for value, and may maintain a suit against the accommodation maker on the paper.</p> <p>4. Continuance—absent witness—essentials of affidavit. Where a continuance is asked on the ground of the absence of a material witness, the affidavit should show the inability of the party to prove the same facts by other witnesses, and where that is not shown, the continuance may properly be refused. The affidavit will also be defective if it fails to show the materiality of the testimony of the absent witness.</p>