Supreme Court rules for John Wood in 1833 legal case

Quincy has had its share of important legal cases. Among the most famous are the Dr. Richard Eells case of 1843 and 1852 and the Pfanschmidt murder case of 1914.
In the Eells case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Fifth Judicial Circuit Judge Stephen A. Douglas’s conviction of abolitionist Dr. Eells, who in 1842 had tried to help a slave fleeing his Monticello, Mo., owner.
In the Pfanschmidt case, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the claim of Ray Pfanschmidt that he had been wrongly convicted of his sister’s murder because of errors by the lower court in Adams County. He was found not guilty when retried for his sister’s death and not guilty in a separate trial related to the murder of his father.
The oldest Quincy case I have been able to find is John Wood v. Peter Hynes. The case involved the concept of “holder in due course.” A holder in due course is a person who in good faith has given value for a negotiable instrument and thereby takes the instrument free of all claims. For example, if a buyer gives a seller a check for an item, and the seller endorses the check to a third party (the “holder in due course”), the buyer must honor the check, even if the item is defective. The buyer may have a claim against the seller, but not against the holder in due course.
Here’s an example of how it works.
Let’s say Mrs. Jones buys a $100 watch from Mr. Smith’s clock shop. Mrs. Jones writes a check for $100 to Mr. Smith. Later that day one of Mr. Smith’s suppliers, Mr. Wilson, stops by the clock shop. Mr. Wilson accepts in good faith Mr. Smith’s offer to endorse Mrs. Jones’s $100 check over to pay for some of the shop’s earlier purchases. At home later on Mrs. Jones discovers the watch has stopped working.
Although she may have a claim against Mr. Smith for the faulty watch, under the principle of “holder in due course” Mrs. Jones must honor the payment of the $100 check that Mr. Smith endorsed over to Mr. Wilson. That’s because her complaint would be with Mr. Smith, who sold her the watch, not Mr. Wilson, who had accepted the check from Mr. Wilson in good faith.
In 1833 there were four Justices on the Illinois Supreme Court. They didn’t just sit on the Supreme Court in Springfield.
They also rode the circuit, acting as trial judges in the four circuit courts which made up the Illinois court system. In 1829, however, a fifth circuit court was created comprising all of the state north and west of the Illinois River, including Adams, Peoria and Jo Daviess Counties in the northwest corner of the state. Judge Richard M. Young was appointed judge of the fifth circuit, moving from Jonesboro to Quincy to better serve the new circuit. Judge Young was only assigned trial court duties, apparently because the fifth circuit was so remote from Springfield. One of Judge Young’s first cases was Wood v. Hynes. David Wilkin “came to the town of Quincy with a quantity of goods boxed up in boxes and crates.”
Wilkin sold the goods to Hynes, who gave him a promissory note dated October 18, 1831: “I promise to pay unto David Wilkin or order, the sum of one thousand dollars.” The note was witnessed by S.W. Rogers and Willard Keyes. On Nov. 21, 1831, Wilkin endorsed the note to John Wood in St. Louis. Wood filed suit when Hynes refused to pay.
Hynes’s attorney was J.W. Whitney. Whitney argued that Wilkin, the seller, “represented himself in the town of Quincy to be a religious man and a member of the Presbyterian Church, in consequence whereof [Hynes] believed the said Wilkin to be an honest man, who would take no advantage, and use no deception in trade.” Yet the said goods “were greatly and scandalously inferior” in quality and quantity to what they were represented to be “so that they were in nowise of value to the amount of the said note.”
Wood’s attorney was Archibald Williams, a friend of Abraham Lincoln, whom Lincoln in 1861 appointed to the first U.S. District Court in Kansas. Answering Whitney’s argument, Williams filed a demurrer, an old common law pleading basically saying “so what?” Judge Young overruled the demurrer and a trial was had that resulted in a verdict and judgment for Hynes. Wood appealed.
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court. If there is fraud in the making or executing of the note, “the note shall be void not only between the maker and payee, but also in the hands of every subsequent holder.” That is not the case here. There is no “right to interpose such a defense where there is a mere deficiency in the quality or quantity of the article sold, as between the maker and the assignee.”
“The clerk of this Court will assess the damages on the note, which is the interest, and render a judgment or the debt and damages so computed, with the costs of this Court, and the Circuit Court of Adams County.” As the “holder in due course” of Hynes’s promissory note, which Wilkins endorsed over to Wood, who had accepted the note in good faith, Wood was entitled to be paid.
The case reminded me of one I heard when I was assigned to Courtroom 1112 in Cook County, Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge. Beulah Hodge hired a plumber and gave him a check for $500, but the plumber never showed up. Beulah had her bank issue a stop-payment order, but the plumber cashed the check at the Currency Exchange. The Currency Exchange sued Beulah, alleging it was a holder in due course, an innocent purchaser like John Wood.
Beulah’s lawyer argued that the Currency Exchange was not a holder in due course, raising the defense of “illegality of the transaction” because the plumber was not licensed as required by statute. I agreed with Beulah, but the Supreme Court reversed.
Justice Michael Bilandic was the Supreme Court’s lone dissenter and every time he saw me after that he would say, “You were right in that Beulah Hodge case.” And I would respond, “You were right in that Beulah Hodge case.”
Robert Cook, a longtime resident of Quincy, is a judge on the Illinois Appellate Court in Springfield. He is a member of the Board of the Historical Society of Quincy and Adams County.





