TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morton v. Tenny

George Morton v. William Tenny

Morton v. Tenny, 16 Ill. 494 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1855
Judges
Scates
Citations
16 Ill. 494
Headnotes
APPEAL EEOM TAZEWELL. A note was described in the declaration, as being payable “ on or before” a certain day; the note offered in evidence was payable “on” the day named: Held, that this did not constitute a variance between the declaration and the proof.
Summary
This was an action on a promissory note, tried before Davis, Judge, without the intervention of a jury, at April term, 1855, of the Tazewell Circuit Court. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant took this appeal. The only question raised upon the record, is one of variance*. The declaration described a note payable “ on or before” the first day of January; the note offered in evidence under the declaration, was made payable “ on” the first day of January. .It was insisted that this was a variance.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Scates

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Scates, 0. J. The note is sufficiently described in substance and legal effect; and this, we think, is all that can be required, to entitle the party to read it in evidence. It may be, and doubtless is true, that plaintiff could make a legal tender, and by it stop interest upon such a note as is described in the declaration, before the day of- payment therein. Tet that will not alter the legal effect of its terms. For it would not bo duo, nor could the owner maintain suit until .the day named. So the words import no obligation, arc not mutual, and consequently do not determine, import, or describe any characteristic of it, or its legal effect as a contract. If the doctrine of substantive variances is once carried beyond this test, it will be difficult to fix boundaries to its application. We do not feel willing or justified in entering upon speculative differences, and can only sanction those that may affect the merits of the case,'or be demanded by special averments.

Judgment affirmed. ■

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1871–1872: 11877–1878: 118712026peak 1871 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bates v. Leclair49 Vt. 229 (1877)
  2. Tipton v. Utley59 Ill. 25 (1871)

Most recent

  1. Bates v. Leclair49 Vt. 229 (1877)
  2. Tipton v. Utley59 Ill. 25 (1871)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list