Latham v. Smith

Citations

• 45 Ill. 25

Syllabus

<p>1. Plea—when it must he sworn to. If it were to be considered at all essential to the validity of a promissory note that a revenue stamp should be placed thereon, duly canceled, a plea in an action on the note denying that the initials of the maker which are found on the stamp were made by him or by his authority, should be verified by affidavit.</p> <p>2. Evidence — hea/rsay. In a suit upon a promissory note by an assignee thereof, testimony in regard to a conversation had between the maker and the payee of the note at the time it was executed, cannot be regarded as hearsay.</p> <p>3. Promissory note—fraud and circumvention in obtaining the same. Fraud and circumvention in obtaining a note, is not fraud which relates to the quality, quantity, value or character of the consideration that moves the contract, but it is such a trick or device as induces the giving of one character of instrument under the belief that it is another of a different character, — such as giving a note or other agreement for one sum or thing when it is for another sum or thing, or giving a note under the belief that it is a receipt.</p> <p>4. So a misrepresentation by the payee of a note, in regard to the legal effect of the instrument, — as that it would not become operative as such until the maker should put a revenue stamp upon it and the property for which it was being given should be delivered,—is not such fraud and circumvention in obtaining the note as will amount to a defense against an assignee without notice, the maker being aware that, in form, the instrument was what it purported to be.</p>