Kingsland v. Koeppe

Citations

• 137 Ill. 344

Syllabus

<p>1. Promissory note—indorsed by third person—presumption of liability—parol evidence in rebuttal. Where a person not the payee of a promissory note, but a third party, places his name on the back thereof, the presumption that he thereby assumes the liability of a guarantor-may be rebutted by parol evidence, which is admissible to show that the agreement of the parties was different, and what liability was in. fact assumed.</p> <p>2. Same—indorsed by payee—character of liability—not changed by parol evidence. Where the payee of a note indorses his name on the-back thereof, a contract of indorsement is created, and the liability-assumed by him being established by the writing, parol evidence is not. admissible to change or vary the terms or conditions of the contract..</p> <p>3. Same—former decisions. The decision in Johnson v. Glover, 121 Ill. 283, was not intended to modify the doctrine announced in Boyntonv. Pierce, 79 Ill. 145, Stowell v. Raymond, 83 id. 120, and Eberhart v. Page 89 id. 550, and followed in National Bank v. Nixon, 125 id. 618.</p> <p>4. Assignment oe error—by plaintiff—on judgment in his favor. In a joint action ex contractu against four defendants, judgment by default was entered in favor of the plaintiff against one defendant, and on to-trial by the court, judgment was rendered in favor of the other defendants : Held, that the plaintiff might assign for error the rendition or the judgment in his favor, against the defendant whose default was-taken.</p> <p>5. Judgment on joint contract—against all or none. Where an action is brought on a joint contract, the general rule is that judgments must be rendered against all of the defendants or none.</p>