Barker v. the Int'l Bank of Chicago.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 80 Ill. 96,1875 WL 8715 |
| Parties | JOHN BARKER et al.v.THE INTERNATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. E. S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. HOWE & RUSSELL, for the plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. ROSENTHAL & PENCE, for the defendant in error. Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was a bill, brought by The International Bank of Chicago, to foreclose a deed of trust on certain lands in Cook county.
The land originally belonged to Henry H. Walker, who, on the 16th day of January, 1868, made a promissory note, payable in eighteen months, to the order of himself, for $25,000, with interest at the rate of six per cent, which he indorsed and delivered to Samuel J. Walker.
On the same day he executed and delivered to Henry Waller, trustee, a trust deed, in which he conveyed the premises to him to secure the payment of the note, which was duly recorded on the 6th day of March, 1868.
The note secured by the trust deed, Samuel J. Walker at once turned over to Greenebaum & Foreman, bankers, to secure a loan of $14,000 which he obtained of that firm.
On the 15th day of April, 1868, Henry H. Walker conveyed the premises, by general warranty deed of conveyance, to James M. Walker, the consideration named in the deed being $103,000.
Samuel J. Walker was indebted to S. Sturges' Sons, and they were creditors of Barker & Haskell. This last conveyance, as between the Walkers and S. Sturges' Sons, seems to have been an absolute sale upon making the deed. Seventy-eight thousand dollars of indebtedness from Samuel J. Walker to the Sturges' was canceled, and $25,000 more was to be canceled when the deed of trust for $25,000 should be paid and discharged, but as between the Sturges' and Barker & Haskell, the conveyance was to be regarded as security for debts due from the former to the latter.
After the $25,000 note became due, the International Bank advanced the $14,000 for which it was pledged to Greenebaum & Foreman, and took the note as security for the money so advanced, and also as security for all indebtedness due from Samuel J. Walker to the bank. It also appears that the general indebtedness of Walker to the bank was, and still is, greater than the amount of the $25,000 note and accrued interest.
The right of the bank to foreclose the deed of trust for the $14,000 advanced to Greenebaum & Foreman, for which it was originally pledged, is not denied, but it is contended that as the bank received the note after Henry H. Walker had conveyed the premises, it can not hold it as security against Walker's grantee for the general indebtedness due from Samuel J. Walker to the bank.
The note in question, under the evidence, can not be regarded as accommodation paper in the technical sense that term is used. It is true, Samuel J. Walker says, when the note was given him by Henry Walker he was to protect it, but at the same time he testifies, “that the property in question was purchased in 1864 or 1865; I had made payments on the land, and this was the way I had of getting back what payments I had made upon it, realizing money upon that and other things.”
If it be true, as this evidence tends to show, that H. H. Walker was indebted to Samuel J. Walker, on account of previous advances made in the purchase of the land, and the note was given for pre-existing indebtedness, such would be a valid consideration for the note.
If, therefore, the note was not strictly commercial accommodation paper, but was given for a valuable consideration, the record discloses no legal defense that Henry H. Walker, the maker, could interpose to defeat its collection.
It will, however, be observed that Walker, the maker of the note, makes no defense to the foreclosure of the deed of trust and the collection of the debt by a sale of the premises.
The question, then, is, whether Sturges and Barker & Haskell, who claim as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Mortgage Co v. Sperry
...upon interest after its maturity. The court below erred in computing interest after it fell due.' This case was referred to in Barker v. Bank, 80 Ill. 96, which was a suit to foreclose a deed of trust given to secure the payment of a promissory note on a named day, 'with interest at the rat......
- Henderson v. Dodgson
- Alexander v. Wolley
- Ives v. Mchard