From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sukowicz v. Hinko

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Mar 24, 1942
314 Ill. App. 195 (Ill. App. Ct. 1942)

Opinion

Gen. No. 41,758. (Abstract of Decision.)

Opinion filed March 24, 1942 Rehearing denied April 11, 1942

CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, § 55asserted defense to note as not existing. On motion to open up a judgment by confession entered against two makers of a note and a third party who claimed to be an endorser rather than a comaker, on default in payment by the makers, the third party alleged as a defense that he agreed to pay the balance of the principal on condition that the payee waive interest, and since the third party was bound to pay interest as either maker or endorser his promise to do what he was already bound to do furnished no valid consideration for payee's alleged agreement to waive interest, and the third party as a matter of law was not entitled to have a jury pass on the existence of the alleged agreement.

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Appeal from Municipal Court of Chicago; Hon. LAMBERT K. HAYES, presiding.

Judgment affirmed. Heard in second division, first district, this court at June term, 1941; opinion filed March 24, 1942.

Edwin B. Harts, for appellant John Hinko;

Kahn, Russ Kahn and Julius L. Kahn, for appellee.


"Not to be published in full." Opinion filed March 24, 1942; rehearing denied April 11, 1942.


Summaries of

Sukowicz v. Hinko

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Mar 24, 1942
314 Ill. App. 195 (Ill. App. Ct. 1942)
Case details for

Sukowicz v. Hinko

Case Details

Full title:D. Sukowicz, Appellee, v. John Hinko et al., Appellants. Appeal of John…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Date published: Mar 24, 1942

Citations

314 Ill. App. 195 (Ill. App. Ct. 1942)
40 N.E.2d 845

Citing Cases

Skolnik v. Susco Production

The rule of strict construction of the powers conferred by warrant does not apply, especially where no…