89 Ill. 364 (Ill. 1878), Bent v. Coleman
|Citation:||89 Ill. 364|
|Opinion Judge:||Mr. JUSTICE BREESE|
|Party Name:||LUCINDA G. BENT v. MARY B. COLEMAN et al|
|Attorney:||Mr. IRA J. BLOOMFIELD, for the appellant. Messrs. GAPEN & EWING, and Mr. WALTER M. HATCH, for the appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Mr. Justice Breese. Mr. Justice Scott, concurring.|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Illinois|
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. OWEN T. REEVES, Judge, presiding.
This was a bill in chancery, in the McLean circuit court, exhibited by Mary B. Coleman and Louisa B. Blenkison, complainants, and to which Origen M. Coleman, Francis Coleman, Sarah Coleman and Lucinda G. Bent, with others were
made defendants, to foreclose a mortgage alleged to have been executed by Origen M. Coleman to complainants on February 18, 1874, to secure the payment of certain promissory notes executed on that day to complainants, the premises described in the deed of mortgage being lot No. 3 of the north-west quarter of section No. 34, township 24 north, range 2 east of the third principal meridian, containing forty acres of land; also a strip of land part of section 33, excepting out of the first named tract a half-acre tract of land deeded to Myron T. Coleman, describing the same by metes and bounds, all lying in McLean county, State of Illinois.
Francis Coleman and Sarah Coleman put in their answers to the bill, claiming and insisting they had a mortgage on the same premises, executed by O. M. Coleman to them, of a date prior to that of complainants' mortgage, and which was duly recorded, which mortgage was executed to secure the payment of one thousand six hundred dollars which they, as executors of the estate of Martin Coleman, had loaned to the mortgagor, O. M. Coleman. They also filed their cross-bill setting up these facts, alleging that the mortgage was executed to them on May 15, 1873, and recorded on December 26, 1873; that it was intended by said mortgage to convey the same identical tract of land as described in the bill of complaint, but under the following description: Beginning two hundreds north of the south-west corner of section 34, etc., while it was intended the description should be, beginning two hundred rods north of the south-west corner, etc.
The bill prayed for a correction of the mistake, and that their mortgage be decreed a first lien on the premises.
Lucinda G. Bent put in her answer to the original bill and to the cross-bill, claiming and alleging that the indebtedness claimed is fraudulent, and denies that O. M. Coleman ever delivered any valid mortgage to the complainants in either bill, but that O. M. Coleman was justly indebted to her in the sum of one thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars with interest, evidenced by two promissory notes, and on December 10, 1874,
made and delivered to her a mortgage on the property described in the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP