Lazell v. Francis

Citations

• 5 Scam. 421

Syllabus

<p>Error to Sangamon.</p> <p>x. Promissory note — assigned after due. Where a note is assigned after its maturity, the defendant is allowed by law to make the same defence against the assignee, that might have been made against the payee.</p> <p>2. Same — instance. A plea to an action on a promissory note, by A against B, that alleges that at the time of making of the said note, it was, as a condition of the making of the same, agreed between the prriies, that the said note should be fully discharged by B’s paying an amount equal thereto for said A to D, a creditor of A and B, and that the defendant did accordingly pay-such amount to said D, is a bar to such action. Such agreement does not vary by the terms of the written [* 422] contract contained in the note.</p> <p>3. Practice — supreme court, final jttdgment. Where judgment is rendered for the defendant in the circuit court, on demurrer to his plea, and that judgment is affirmed in the supreme court, the cause will not be remanded.</p> <p>Note, See Bailey v. Cromwell, 3 Scam. 72; Lane v. Sharpe, 8 Scam. 573; Doyle et al. v. Teas et al. ante 366.</p>