Homes v. Hale

Citations

• 71 Ill. 552

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraud and circumvention in procuring the execution of a note. Although the maker of a promissory note was induced to sign it by the false and fraudulent representations of the agent of the payee as to its legal effect, and the liability which would thereby be imposed upon him, still, if, when he signed it, he was acquainted with its language, or might have been by the exercise of ordinary prudence and caution, as against an indorsee before maturity and without notice, he is bound.</p> <p>2. The exercise of due diligence and attention on the part of the signer of negotiable paper, is a necessary element in a defense that its execution was obtained by fraud and circumvention, when such defense is set up against an innocent assignee before maturity; and an instruction that, if the jury believe, from the evidence, he was induced by the opposite party to believe that the instrument was different from what it really was, they should find for the defendant, thus excluding all question as to the negligence of the defendant, is erroneous.</p> <p>3. Credibility op witness. The fact that there is a preponderance of evidence against the statement of a witness on a single point, does not, as a legal proposition, affect the credibility of his whole testimony.</p> <p>4. Instructions—should not single out facts and give them undue prominence. An instruction which singles out certain facts and gives them undue prominence, and, by peculiar phraseology, seems to imply their existence, and then informs the jury that, from them, they are entitled to view the entire transaction with suspicion, is erroneous.</p>