Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 Ill. 31

Snell v. Stanley

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1871

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1871-01-15

John M. Scott, Judge, presiding. It appears that Charles C. Brown owned certain land, and sold it to Henry G. Tyler, who executed to Brown a mortgage on the land to secure the deferred payments on the purchase, for which he had executed three promissory notes, due in one, two, and three years, for §1000, each, bearing six per cent interest. Brown transferred the notes to complainant, and Tyler subsequently sold the land to Snell.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1899

4 state decisions

20187118801890decided

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 →

Mr. Justice Thornton

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2Clinton W. Stanley filed a bill to foreclose a mortgage, making defendants thereto, Thomas Snell, Sarah E. Snell, Gus. Bahay, and Chris. Krouse. No answer was filed, and we are called upon to decide, as to the sufficiency of the bill upon demurrer. We have examined the record, and find no demurrer. We can not therefore determine the questions attempted to be raised by it.

¶3The bill does not aver that Sarah is the wife of Thomas Snell, but avers that Bahay and Krouse are merely tenants of Snell, upon the lands in the bill mentioned; and they have no other interest therein.

¶4The default of the defendants was entered, and a hearing had on bill, exhibits and oral proofs; and thereupon the court rendered a decree of foreclosure, and found that Sarah was the wife of Thomas Snell, and ordered that she and the tenants, as well as Thomas, pay the money secured by the notes and mortgage.

¶5The notes and mortgage were originally executed to Brown by Tyler,—Brown transferred to complainant, and Tyler "sold the land to defendant Snell.

¶6It was unquestionably error to decree against Sarah Snell. Even if she was the wife of Thomas Snell no personal decree should have been rendered against her. It was equal error to order the tenants to pay the money found to be due, together with the costs.

¶7The decree is reversed and cause remanded.

¶8Decree reversed.

¶9Mr. Justice Scott took no part in this decision.

/58/ill/31 · .json · Public domain