Gallatin County IL Archives Court.....Taylor, V Sprinkle 1819-31
************************************************
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 27, 2008, 11:22 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases Illinois
Written: 1819-31

DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF ILLINOIS.
DECEMBER TERM, 1819, AT KASKASKIA.

Present, THOMAS C. BROWNE, JOHN REYNOLDS, WILLIAM WILSON; Associate Justices.
JOSEPH PHILIPS, Chief Justice; absent.

Jonathan Taylor, Appellant, v. Michael Sprinkle, Appellee. 

Appeal from Gallatin.

In all special pleas to the consideration of a note, the manner of avoiding 
the obligation ought to be shown; a failure to do it is error.

Opinion of the Court.* This was an action of covenant. The fifth plea states, 
that the consideration failed. This plea was demurred to, and the demurrer 
sustained by the court. The validity of the fifth plea, is the only point 
before the court. The plea was filed under the statute,** which introduces a 
new remedy contrary to the common law, and ought not to be extended too far; 
and in all special pleas, the manner of avoiding the obligation ought to be 
shown. As the precise manner is not shown by this plea, it is insufficient, 
and the demurrer to it was properly sustained. The judgment of the circuit 
court is affirmed, with five per cent, damages and costs. (1)

Judgment affirmed. 

-----------------
*Justice Browne having decided this cause in the court below, gave no opinion.

**Laws of 1819, page 59.

(1) The principle asserted in this case has been repeated in numerous cases 
since this decision was made. A reference only to them is necessary. Cornelius 
v. Vanorsdale, post. Pool v. Vanlandingham, id. Bradshaw v. Newman, id. Sims 
v. Klein, id. Swain v. Cawood, 2 Scammon, 503. Vanlandingham v. Ryan, 17 
Illinois Rep., 25. A plea of failure of consideration to an action upon a 
note, should state particularly in what the failure consisted. General 
allegations are not sufficient. Parks v. Holmes, 22 Illinois Rep., 522. Under 
the general issue it is not competent to show a total or partial failure of 
consideration of a promissory note. Rose v. Mortimer, 17 Illinois Rep., 475. 
Under a plea of a total failure of consideration, a partial failure can not be 
given in evidence. Sims v. Klein, post. Swain v. Cawood, 2 Scam., 505.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases at Common Law and in Chancery, Argued and Determined in the 
Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, From its First Organization in 1819, 
to the End of December Term, 1831. By Sidney Breese, Counsellor at Law. Second 
Edition, with Additional Notes, By Edwin Beecher. Chicago: Callaghan & 
Company, 1877.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/gallatin/court/taylor202gwl.txt

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

File size: 3.0 Kb