Seibel v. Vaugham

Citations

• 69 Ill. 257

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—utility of invention on issue of failure of consideration of note given for right to sell. In an action upon a promissory note given for the profits expected to he realized hy the maker in selling patent hay rakes as agent, where a failure of consideration was pleaded, that the maker was wholly unable to make any sales, and realized no profits, the court allowed the plaintiff to prove the utility of the invention hy a witness ; this court said that such evidence seemed to be pertinent to the issue, but even if not, held, that the error was not prejudicial to the defendant, and therefore no ground of reversal.</p> <p>3. Alteration—negligence of maker of note in respect to. If a party-executes a promissory note with a material part written only in pencil, subject to be easily erased so as to leave no appearance of alteration on the face of the note, such as interlining in pencil the words “without interest,” when, by ordinary care and prudence, he could have guarded against erasures, he will be guilty of negligence, and can not defeat its collection with the words written iu pencil erased, in the hands of an innocent holder taking the same before maturity, without notice of any alteration.</p> <p>3. New trial—must he a motion for, and exception taken and preserved in hill of exceptions. It is the settled practice in this State, that a judgment will not be reversed for insufficiency of evidence, if a motion for a new trial is not made in the court below. And the fact that such motion is made, and the exception to the ruling of the court thereon, must be preserved by bill of exceptions.</p>