Klein v. Matthias T. Horine.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1868 |
| Citation | 47 Ill. 430,1868 WL 5015 |
| Parties | JACOB P. KLEIN, Impleaded, &c.,v.MATTHIAS T. HORINE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Monroe county; the Hon. SILAS L. BRYAN, Judge, presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Messrs. W. H. & J. B. UNDERWOOD, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. H. K. S. O'MELVENY, for the defendant in error.
It appears that Matthias T. Horine, as assignee of Josiah Clark, sued George J. Klein, the maker of the note, and recovered a judgment for $868.00. He, at the same term of court, filed a bill and obtained an injunction to restrain George J. from collecting a note he held on John Kraft for $964.00, and to prevent him from transferring the note, or Kraft from paying it, upon the ground that it would probably be paid before it could be reached by legal process, and be applied to the payment of Horine's judgment.
He afterwards instituted garnishee proceedings against Kraft and Jacob P. Kline. Kraft answered that the note had been assigned by George J. to Jacob P., who had assigned it to Michael Kline, the father of George and Jacob. It does not appear what became of this proceeding.
Defendant in error subsequently filed a bill against all of the Klines and Kraft, but this bill was afterwards lost. On application to the court, he obtained leave to file a substituted bill. In it he recited these facts, and charges that the assignment from George to Jacob, was for the fraudulent purpose of hindering him in the collection of his debt; that at the May term, 1864, he garnisheed Michael Klein, and upon the hearing on his answer, a judgment was rendered against him for $945.00, but that it is unavailing, as Michael has no property out of which to satisfy the judgment. The substituted bill further alleges, that the former bill was filed for relief against “the acts and doings of defendants, on the ground of fraud, which bill is lost and cannot be produced at this term.” It concludes with a prayer that he have a decree against each and all of the defendants to pay his judgment, with interest, and that the decree be a lien on their lands, and for general relief.
It will be observed that the substituted bill is meagre in its allegations, and seems rather to be a very general recital of the contents of the previous bill, which had been lost. It should have been, in every particular, as full and complete in all of its parts as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of East St. Louis v. M. Millard.
...to common law pleading: Slack v. McLagan, 15 Ill. 242; Smith v. Brittenham, 98 Ill. 188; Newell et al. v. Bureau Co., 37 Ill. 253; Klein v. Horine, 47 Ill. 430; Jones v. Albee, 70 Ill. 34; Cole v. Opera House, 79 Ill. 96. Some specific reason must be shown to invest a court of equity with j......
-
Lyons v. Murray
... ... creditors. Wise v. Weimer, 23 Mo. 237; Spaulding ... v. Myres, 64 Ind. 265; Klein v. Horne, 47 Ill ... 430; Kinder v. Nacy, 7 Cal. 206; Skinner v ... Stewart, 39 Barb. 206. (b) ... ...
-
Murphy v. Murphy
... ... Pl. & Prac. pp. 686, 687; Brooks v. O'Hara (C. C.) 8 Fed. 529;Jones v. Albee, 70 Ill. 34;Klein v. Horine, 47 Ill. 430. In Smith v. Brittenham, 98 Ill. 188, we said: Charges of fraud should not ... ...
-
Sickman v. Abernathy
...consideration.' One who alleges fraud must clearly and distinctly prove the fraud he alleges. Beatty v. Fishel, 100 Mass. 448; Klein v. Horine, 47 Ill. 430; Morgan v. Olvey, Ind. 6. 'In order to establish fraud, the true rule, in all courts, is to require such legal evidence as will overcom......