Cogswell v. Armstrong

Decision Date31 January 1875
Citation1875 WL 8274,77 Ill. 139
PartiesHENRY D. COGSWELLv.WILLIAM ARMSTRONG et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. THOMAS F. TIPTON, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. MCNULTA & ALDRICH, for the appellant.

Messrs. WILLIAMS, BURR & CAPEN, for the appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill of interpleader, filed by Henry D. Cogswell, in the circuit court of McLean county, against William Armstrong, S. M. Murphy, James Walsh, Geo. R. Brooks, and Charles H. Kellogg.

The only question presented by the record is, whether the decree of the circuit court was proper, under the facts, which are undisputed, and in substance as follows: On the 18th day of August, 1869, Cogswell, appellant, purchased of Armstrong, one of appellees, a tract of land in McLean county, and gave in payment his three promissory notes of $400 each, due in one, two and three years, with ten per cent interest, and a mortgage upon the land to secure their payment. When the first note became due, it was paid, and also $40 was paid on each of the other notes, which was credited thereon.

Before the second note became due, Armstrong became indebted to S. M. Murphy & Co. in the sum of $706, and gave them his note for the amount, and, in order to secure the payment of the note, he transferred the two notes which he had obtained of appellant.

In 1871, S. M. Murphy & Co. obtained a judgment against Armstrong, on his note, for over $800, upon which execution was issued, and $430 was collected from Armstrong. Appellant paid to the attorneys of S. M. Murphy & Co. $440, which was indorsed on the last note due. This, together with the $430 collected of Armstrong upon execution, paid the judgment Murphy & Co. obtained against Armstrong, and left a balance of some $45 in their hands.

After Armstrong had transferred the notes, and a short time after the second note became due, appellant, not knowing of the transfer, paid Armstrong, and took his receipts, the sum of $400, which was to be credited upon the second note. Prior to this, however, Armstrong being indebted to Walsh, Brooks & Kellogg, they instituted an action by attachment, before a justice of the peace in Hamilton county, Ohio, where they resided, and the firm of S. M. Murphy & Co. were summoned to answer as garnishees. They appeared and answered, and the cause proceeded to judgment against Armstrong, and a judgment was also rendered against the garnishees for the surplus of the Cogswell notes in excess of the amount due from Armstrong to S. M. Murphy & Co., which was about $250.

In 1872, Armstrong sued appellant before a justice of the peace. Appellant, however, upon trial, obtained a judgment against Armstrong for $72.

The bill alleges that there is still a balance due from appellant upon the notes after he is allowed the $400 which was paid to Armstrong; that Murphy & Co., and Walsh, Brooks & Kellogg claim an interest in the notes, and have notified appellant not to pay the balance to Armstrong, and that Armstrong has ordered him not to pay it to them.

The object of the bill is, to have it determined to whom the balance shall be paid, to obtain the possession of the notes given to Armstrong, and appellant also seeks an allowance, against the amount remaining due upon the notes, of the judgment of $72 and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Aetna Ins. Co. v. Evans
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 9 Marzo 1909
    ...... yourselves.' [57 Fla. 336] ' As is said in 11 Ency. of. Pl. & Pr. 447, note 1: 'This quotation has been cited. with approval in Cogswell v. Armstrong, 77 Ill. 139;. Wakeman v. Kingsland, 46 N. J. Eq. 113, 18 A. 680;. Anderson v. Wilkinson, 10 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 601;. Greene ......
  • Bryan v. Pinney
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • 10 Noviembre 1892
    ......& B. Eq. 16; Moffat v. Mullinger, 2. Chitty, 539, S. C. 2 Bos. & P. 124; Trustees. Methodist Church v. Stewart, 27 Barb. 553; In re. Armstrong, 69 Cal. 240, 10 P. 235; Brown v. Mann, 71 Cal. 192, 12 P. 51; Buchanan v. Meisser, 105. Ill. 643. . . The. phrase used by some of the ...Moore, 5. Iowa, 486; Bennett v. Libhart, 27 Mich. 488;. Waller v. Edmonds, 47 Tex. 469; Wilson v. Benedict, 90 Mo. 208, 2 S.W. 283; Cogswell v. Armstrong, 77 Ill. 139; Prescott v. Tuffs, 7. Mass. 209; Faulkner v. Faulkner, 73 Mo. 89. . . Defendants'. answer showed that Vina ......
  • Greene v. Davis
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 4 Junio 1906
    ...... (9 Ed.), secs. 297, 297a; Hayman v. Cameron, 46. Miss. 725; Pomeroy's Equity Juris. (3 Ed.), secs. 1320-1322-1325; Cogswell v. Armstrong, 77 Ill. 139;. Hathaway v. Foy, 40 Mo. 540; Tiedeman's Equity. Jurisprudence, secs. 570-573; McHenry v. Hazard, 45. N.Y. 580; Hellman ......
  • Rauch v. Ft. Dearborn Nat. Bank of Chicago
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 6 Diciembre 1906
    ......Cogswell v. Armstrong, 77 Ill. 139;Platte Valley Bank v. National Live Stock Bank, 155 ill. 250, 40 N. E. 621;Morrill v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 183 Ill. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT