Cook County IL Archives Court.....Schuttler, V Piatt 1850
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarch.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarch.org/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 May 25, 2008, 3:45 pm

Source: Records Of Cases Illinois
Written: 1850

Peter Schuttler, appellant, v. William Piatt, appellee.

Appeal form Cook County Court of Common Pleas.

If a note and assignment are made in this state, the rights and liabilities of 
the parties must be governed by the laws of the state. (a)

An assignor of a note is liable, if the assignee uses due diligence in 
prosecuting the maker to insolvency, or if the institution of a suit against 
him would have been unavailing, and if the maker of the note has absconded or 
left the state when the note falls due. (b)

If the maker of a note is beyond the limits of the state when the note 
matures, so that he cannot be subjected to our jurisdiction, liability of the 
assignor becomes fixed.

The assignee of a note is not bound to pursue the debtor into a foreign 
jurisdiction, but he may at once resort to his assignor for payment; the fact 
that the maker of the note resided in another state when he gave the note, 
though known to the assignee, does not vary the liability.

This was an action of assumpsit in the Cook County Court of Common Pleas, 
brought by Schuttler against Piatt, to recover from the latter the amount of a 
promissory note given by one Armstrong, to him or order, and endorsed by Piatt 
to Schuttler. At February term, 1851, of the court, Spring, Judge, presiding, 
the cause was submitted to him, without the intervention of a jury, and a 
verdict and judgment was entered for the defendant. Schuttler thereupon 
appealed to this court.

The bill of exceptions shows that Schuttler introduced the following note, 
which was read in evidence.

"Fifty days after date, I promise to pay to William Piatt, or order, one 
hundred dollars for value received. 
John Armstrong, Jr.
"Chicago, October 19, 1848.

Endorsed, "Pay Peter Schuttler, or order. Wm. Piatt."

Two other notes of a like character were also introduced by Schuttler. A 
witness was sworn, who stated that the notes were given for a buggy and a pair 
of horses that Piatt sold Armstrong, that a few days afterwards, Armstrong 
left for his home, in Wisconsin. That Piatt lived in Indiana, and before his 
return home, sold the notes to Schuttler for some wagons. That Schuttler asked 
the witness if the notes were good, witness replied that Piatt was good if 
Armstrong was not. And that when the notes were endorsed, it was stated by 
Piatt and others, that Armstrong lived in the state of Wisconsin, up in the 
pinery. That, soon after the trade, Armstrong took the horses and buggy, and 
left for Wisconsin, since when, witness had not seen him, nor has Armstrong, 
to the knowledge of witness, been in Chicago since. That the notes were 
endorsed within two weeks after they were given. That it was understood by all 
the parties, that Armstrong lived in Wisconsin.

Another witness stated, that he had known Armstrong since 1842, and that he 
did not know of his having any property since 1844 or 1845. 

Judd & Wilson, for appellant.

J. H. Collins, for appellee.

Treat, C. J. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Schuttler, the 
assignee of certain promissory notes, against Piatt, the payee and assignor. 
The declaration contained two classes of counts; the one alleging the 
insolvency of the maker, the other his departure from the state, before the 
maturity of the notes. It appeared in evidence, that the notes were made in 
Chicago, and were there assigned in the usual form, before they became due. 
The maker resided in Wisconsin, and returned home shortly after the execution 
of the notes, and had not since been within this state. The plaintiff was 
informed of his residence, when he received the notes. The payee was a 
resident of Indiana. Some evidence was given, tending to show the solvency of 
the maker, but in the view we are inclined to take of the case, it need not be 
further noticed. The court rendered judgment for the defendant.

The note and assignment having been made in this state, the rights and 
liabilities of the parties must be governed and determined by our laws. The 
statute, after providing that the assignor shall be liable to the assignee, if 
the latter shall use due diligence by suit against the maker, proceeds as 
follows: "Provided, that if the institution of such a suit would have been 
unavailing, or the maker or makers had absconded, or left the state, when such 
assigned note, bond, bill or other instrument in writing became due, such 
assignee or assignees, or his or her executors or administrators, may recover 
against the assignor or assignors, or against his or their heirs, executors or 
administrators, as if due diligence by suit had been used." There are three 
contingencies in which the assignor may be liable. First, where the assignee, 
by the exercise of due diligence, prosecutes the matter to insolvency. Second, 
where the institution of a suit would bo unavailing. Third, where the maker 
has absconded or left the state, when the note falls due. The assignor, by a 
general endorsement of the note, binds himself to pay it on the happening of 
either of these contingencies. The provisions of the statute enter into and 
form a part of the contract of the parties. If the maker is beyond the limits 
of the state when the note matures, so that he cannot be subjected to our 
jurisdiction, the liability of the assignor becomes fixed. The assignee is not 
bound to pursue the debtor into a foreign jurisdiction, but he may at once 
resort to his assignor for payment. The circumstance that the maker resided in 
another state, and that this was known to the plaintiff when he received the 
notes, does not vary the liability of the defendant. His endorsement was 
general, and he must abide the consequences of a statutory assignment. If the 
parties had intended otherwise, the endorsement would have been special, 
restricting the responsibility of the assignor.

The ruling of the Circuit Court was clearly erroneous, and its judgment must 
be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

------------------
(a) Crouch v. Hall, 15 Ill., 263; Mason v. Burton, 54 Ill., 349, accord. On a 
note made in Missouri and assigned there, the lex loci of Missouri as to the 
liability of the assignor, is to govern: Humphreys v. Collier, B. Breese, 297, 
and note. A contract executed for the purchase price of a slave in a state 
recognizing slavery, can be enforced in this state, notwithstanding slavery is 
prohibited here: Roundtree v. Baker, 52 Ill., 241. The laws of the state where 
a promissory note is made will govern as to the defenses which may be set up 
against a recovery thereon: Evans v. Anderson, 78 Ill., 558, and cases cited.

(b) See Hilborn v. Artus, 3 Scam., 344 (annotated edition).

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois from 
November Term, 1850, to June Term, 1851, both inclusive by E. Peck, Counsellor 
at Law. Volume XII. Reprinted from the Original Edition, with Annotations by 
William Gordon McMillan of the Chicago Bar. Callaghan & Company, Chicago, Ill. 
1881.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/cook/court/schuttle166gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/

File size: 7.6 Kb