Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 Ill. 26

Adams v. Payson

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1849

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1849-11-15

This was a hill in chancery, in the Madison county Circuit Court, to foreclose a mortgage filed by Payson against Adams, which came on to be heard before Kcerner, Judge, at the August term, A. D. 1848, and a decree of foreclosure was allowed. The facts of the case, and the errors complained of, will be sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1849-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1975

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

3018491850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Opinion by Mr. Justice Catón :

¶1In this case, we have again to reiterate a principle so familiar that authority in its support would be superfluous.

¶2This bill is to foreclose a mortgage, given to secure, among other things, the payment of a promissory note; the non-payment of which is alone complained of. The bill was taken for confessed, and it was referred to a master, to compute the amount due upon the note; and to assess and tax the fee of the complainant’s solicitor, according to an agreement filed in the cause, by which the defendant bound himself to pay such fee, in case the complainant had to foreclose the mortgage.

¶3This agreement was executed some time after the mortgage, and before the commencement of this suit, and is not referred to in or made a part of the bill; nor was it ever placed upon the files of the Court, till more than two months after the bill was filed.

¶4The master reported the amount due upon th’e note at í¿ 464 47; and that he had taxed the fee of the complainant’s solicitor at thirty dollars. For both of which sums the decree was rendered.

¶5That portion of the decree, alone, is assigned for error, which directs the defendant to pay the solicitor’s fee of thirty dollars. That part of the decree must undoubtedly be reversed. No claim for that fee is set up in the bill, and the defendant had no opportunity of defending that claim. The Court could not give the complainant more than he asked, and showed, by his bill, that he was entitled to.

¶6That portion of the plea complained of must be reversed, and the residue stand affirmed. The costs to be paid by the defendant in error.

¶7Decree, modified.

/11/ill/26 · .json · Public domain